Makes me sick... Topic

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 12:03:00 PM (view original):
What's funny is that you don't realize science is your "bible". Stories and studies created over time by men you know nothing about, who happen to share your beliefs
Um, no. See, the thing you're missing is evidence. There is evidence of an old earth. There is no evidence of a young earth.

Just because I personally can't radiocarbon date a rock doesn't mean that others can't. And their results can be examined, retested, and verified as correct.

Do you have any young earth evidence?
2/6/2013 12:12 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2013 12:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
I wouldn't want my kids being taught creationism as an alternative to evolution in school.  I'd have a huge problem with that.
And this is what weakens the evolutionist position. If your system was "fact" you'd have no problem with it standing next to another theory. But you're afraid it won't hold up, so you cry "NO!"

If it was indeed fact, you could confidently sit back and watch the other theories fall apart beside it.
I'm talking about elementary school age children.  They're not mentally developed enough to distinguish between the validity of competing theories.

If you "teach" a bunch of first graders that the moon is made out of cheese, many of them are going to believe it.

Is that the kind of educational system you're advocating?
So be a parent. If my child came home saying the moon was made of cheese, I wouldn't freak out and write a letter to the school board. I'd sit down and talk to my child about it.
Seeing that the taxes that I pay are funding my town's educational system, I would prefer that I wouldn't have to debrief my child every day to see what they were taught, and then have to spend a couple of hours "reprogramming" them.

If that's what you're advocating, then we should should aboloish the educational system in the U.S. and rely solely on home-schooling.

How well do you think that will work out?

Do you have school age children of your own?
2/6/2013 12:13 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2013 12:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
I wouldn't want my kids being taught creationism as an alternative to evolution in school.  I'd have a huge problem with that.
And this is what weakens the evolutionist position. If your system was "fact" you'd have no problem with it standing next to another theory. But you're afraid it won't hold up, so you cry "NO!"

If it was indeed fact, you could confidently sit back and watch the other theories fall apart beside it.
I'm talking about elementary school age children.  They're not mentally developed enough to distinguish between the validity of competing theories.

If you "teach" a bunch of first graders that the moon is made out of cheese, many of them are going to believe it.

Is that the kind of educational system you're advocating?
So be a parent. If my child came home saying the moon was made of cheese, I wouldn't freak out and write a letter to the school board. I'd sit down and talk to my child about it.
There's a difference between not freaking out about something your kid hears at school and making a conscious decision as a school board to teach kids in science class that the composition of the moon is up for debate and that moon as cheese is equally as viable scientifically as the other "theory."
2/6/2013 12:15 PM
Exactly tec - "reprogramming". You are determining your child's "truth" for him/her
2/6/2013 12:20 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Religion is essentially a lie that's been perpetrated by various churches to maintain control and behavior modification over the ignorant masses.  You can't DISPROVE religion, and that's where the appeal lies for the ignorant masses and organized religion has capitalized on it.
2/6/2013 12:23 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Exactly tec - "reprogramming". You are determining your child's "truth" for him/her
Isn't that EXACTLY what organized religious education is?
2/6/2013 12:24 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2013 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 12:03:00 PM (view original):
What's funny is that you don't realize science is your "bible". Stories and studies created over time by men you know nothing about, who happen to share your beliefs
Um, no. See, the thing you're missing is evidence. There is evidence of an old earth. There is no evidence of a young earth.

Just because I personally can't radiocarbon date a rock doesn't mean that others can't. And their results can be examined, retested, and verified as correct.

Do you have any young earth evidence?
I can find some, yes. But it doesn't matter. Any evidence I posted, you'd immediately write off as irreputable or garbage. It's hilarious that you all act as if you'd change your beliefs in a heartbeat if "science" suddenly suggested you were wrong. You'd disregard and go find some other "science" to support what you believe.
I will debate your evidence in good faith.

This isn't some belief that I'm in any way emotionally invested in. I believe that science has it right in this case. In the face of evidence to the contrary, I would change my position. But that evidence would need to be very strong since, you know, it would be completely invalidating everything we know about biology.
2/6/2013 12:26 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2013 12:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Exactly tec - "reprogramming". You are determining your child's "truth" for him/her
Isn't that EXACTLY what organized religious education is?
Yes. I haven't denied that. My argument this whole time has been that evolutionists are no different, despite their chest thumping and claims of superiority.
2/6/2013 12:27 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2013 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Religion is essentially a lie that's been perpetrated by various churches to maintain control and behavior modification over the ignorant masses.  You can't DISPROVE religion, and that's where the appeal lies for the ignorant masses and organized religion has capitalized on it.
That's a bit strong, and is certainly true for what is generally regarded as the "fringe" religions, i.e. "cults".  I would say the the generally regarded mainstream religions are more benign than that,

I was raised as Catholic, attended Catholic elementary and high schools, and my college was run by the Jesuits.  While I certainly don't "believe" the dogma that the Catholic church professes as absolute truths, there are some aspects of Catholicism and Christianity in general that help shape and guide my moral compass.

I suppose, if I were so inclined, I'd be better off "shopping" for a different religion that better fit my personal beliefs, but that's never been a priority.
2/6/2013 12:33 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2013 12:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2013 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 12:03:00 PM (view original):
What's funny is that you don't realize science is your "bible". Stories and studies created over time by men you know nothing about, who happen to share your beliefs
Um, no. See, the thing you're missing is evidence. There is evidence of an old earth. There is no evidence of a young earth.

Just because I personally can't radiocarbon date a rock doesn't mean that others can't. And their results can be examined, retested, and verified as correct.

Do you have any young earth evidence?
I can find some, yes. But it doesn't matter. Any evidence I posted, you'd immediately write off as irreputable or garbage. It's hilarious that you all act as if you'd change your beliefs in a heartbeat if "science" suddenly suggested you were wrong. You'd disregard and go find some other "science" to support what you believe.
I will debate your evidence in good faith.

This isn't some belief that I'm in any way emotionally invested in. I believe that science has it right in this case. In the face of evidence to the contrary, I would change my position. But that evidence would need to be very strong since, you know, it would be completely invalidating everything we know about biology.
Science (evolution, in this case) stands on a generally accepted process of evidence gathering, analysis, and proof-based conclusions that can stand up to virtually all challenges to it.  Most credible scientists are open to anomolies and changing the conclusions if additional evidence, after proper analysis, warrants it.  In other words, science evolves over time, and usually in the right direction.

Religion (creationism, in this case) stands on little to nothing more than blind faith.
2/6/2013 12:40 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2013 12:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
I wouldn't want my kids being taught creationism as an alternative to evolution in school.  I'd have a huge problem with that.
And this is what weakens the evolutionist position. If your system was "fact" you'd have no problem with it standing next to another theory. But you're afraid it won't hold up, so you cry "NO!"

If it was indeed fact, you could confidently sit back and watch the other theories fall apart beside it.
I'm talking about elementary school age children.  They're not mentally developed enough to distinguish between the validity of competing theories.

If you "teach" a bunch of first graders that the moon is made out of cheese, many of them are going to believe it.

Is that the kind of educational system you're advocating?
Then why teach either?

Math is math.   Reading, and the things that go with it, is reading.

Why teach anything if there is a competing theory?  
2/6/2013 12:42 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2013 12:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2013 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 12:03:00 PM (view original):
What's funny is that you don't realize science is your "bible". Stories and studies created over time by men you know nothing about, who happen to share your beliefs
Um, no. See, the thing you're missing is evidence. There is evidence of an old earth. There is no evidence of a young earth.

Just because I personally can't radiocarbon date a rock doesn't mean that others can't. And their results can be examined, retested, and verified as correct.

Do you have any young earth evidence?
I can find some, yes. But it doesn't matter. Any evidence I posted, you'd immediately write off as irreputable or garbage. It's hilarious that you all act as if you'd change your beliefs in a heartbeat if "science" suddenly suggested you were wrong. You'd disregard and go find some other "science" to support what you believe.
I will debate your evidence in good faith.

This isn't some belief that I'm in any way emotionally invested in. I believe that science has it right in this case. In the face of evidence to the contrary, I would change my position. But that evidence would need to be very strong since, you know, it would be completely invalidating everything we know about biology.
Science (evolution, in this case) stands on a generally accepted process of evidence gathering, analysis, and proof-based conclusions that can stand up to virtually all challenges to it.  Most credible scientists are open to anomolies and changing the conclusions if additional evidence, after proper analysis, warrants it.  In other words, science evolves over time, and usually in the right direction.

Religion (creationism, in this case) stands on little to nothing more than blind faith.
Witch-burning was a generally accepted process at one time.   Slavery was a generally accepted process for harvesting cotton.

Maybe "generally accepted process" isn't always the best thing.
2/6/2013 12:45 PM
It's the best you've got until something better comes along.
2/6/2013 12:47 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2013 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2013 12:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/6/2013 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/6/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
I wouldn't want my kids being taught creationism as an alternative to evolution in school.  I'd have a huge problem with that.
And this is what weakens the evolutionist position. If your system was "fact" you'd have no problem with it standing next to another theory. But you're afraid it won't hold up, so you cry "NO!"

If it was indeed fact, you could confidently sit back and watch the other theories fall apart beside it.
I'm talking about elementary school age children.  They're not mentally developed enough to distinguish between the validity of competing theories.

If you "teach" a bunch of first graders that the moon is made out of cheese, many of them are going to believe it.

Is that the kind of educational system you're advocating?
Then why teach either?

Math is math.   Reading, and the things that go with it, is reading.

Why teach anything if there is a competing theory?  
There is no competing scientific theory. Creationism isn't science.
2/6/2013 12:48 PM
◂ Prev 1...13|14|15|16|17...60 Next ▸
Makes me sick... Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.