Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Nothing wrong with that. Putting Noah's Ark in a history book is another story.

I totally agree with this.

Quote:I had a World Religion class in high school at a public school. We learned about a lot of different religions.

Similar it really helped you realise they are all nonsense

Quote:Nothing wrong with that. Putting Noah's Ark in a history book is another story.

A comparative religion course is fine.  As is a world religion course, or any course that remains objective. I don't, however think, it's a teachers job to instill their religious values in students.  I think that should be left up to the parents.  There's a fine line between educating and instilling values.  

 

Noah's Ark shouldn't be a field trip either, nor should the creationist museum.  Of course some public schools in Kentucky have went on field trips to Ken Ham's Creationist Museum.  Which is a bit more worrisome to me than banning something on a t-shirt.  (Schools have some crazy dresscode requirements sometimes tbh, not all of which I agree with.  Guns on shirts isn't really that big of a deal, but I doubt it takes that much of their time or money enforcing)   

 

But I still have faith in public schools--even the ones in Kentucky.  Thanks to IDEA I was able to learn to read.  I had a learning disability that made it hard for me to learn to read.  Eventually I got it, and now reading is one of my favorite activities.  I can't imagine where I'd be today without it--aside from probably on welfare instead of having a decent paying job.

Quote:Nothing wrong with that. Putting Noah's Ark in a history book is another story.

 

While I agree with this statement, I think that the theory of macroevolution also needs to be taught as a possible explanation for diversity of life, and not as undisputed fact.

 

Only a fool would disagree with microevolution--i.e., adaptations within a species group.

 

However, the idea that all life began as a single celled organism has no proof to support it and violates the laws of thermodynamics.  Therefore, not only would you need an event that created life on this planet (which there are varied explanations for, one of which being extraterrestrial seeding), you would need a separate event to trigger mutation on a grand scale with each macro-level change from species to species occurring.  The mathematical odds of that are ridiculously small.

 

As such, I have no issue with macroevolution and creationism being taught side by side in a science classroom, as long as there is no religious bent.  It's pretty easy to say "Some believe a supreme being created life, while others believe it was a cosmic event that created the first single-celled organism, which changed over millions of years to become multiple different species."

 

I know that this is not a popular opinion.

Good story that eleventh doctor. Would never guess you had any issues previously by your posts. Everyone should want good public schools its the foundation of giving everyone a fair go at reaching their potential based on ability rather than ability to pay. It's good for society.

Creationism isn't a science, so it doesn't belong in a science classroom.  There is no scientific aspect to it.  Otherwise you might as well teach Ancient Astronaut theory as well.

Quote:If it's in the student code of conduct, how is it a liberal thing? Those things have been pretty much the same for decades. It doesn't matter if it's a space gun or a real gun. If it's disallowed, it's enforceable. Like I said.. these are all pretty ridiculous and extremely rare instances.


Truth be told.. a stormtrooper with a weapon isn't too dangerous. They don't hit 10% of what they aim at.

 

For decades?  Perhaps I'll give you that one.  I assume that "decades" for you goes back to maybe the 1990's.  As of matter of fact now that I think about it, we never had a "code of conduct" in school.  It was pretty much a given.

 

Now let me ask you this, which side of the political aisle is against guns?  Why would the display of a gun by whatever means be considered "inappropriate"?  Those are liberal thoughts and ideals.

 

Why would a kid wearing a shirt ever be suspended for this?

 



 

 

Yes it has a picture of a gun, but what's so wrong with it?  Why is is so inappropriate?  Would a liberal or a conservative be "offended" or triggered by that image?  The answer is pretty obvious.

 

Yes, it is a liberal thing.  Liberals don't like the idea of viewing a weapon no matter the context.

Quote:Creationism isn't a science, so it doesn't belong in a science classroom.  There is no scientific aspect to it.  Otherwise you might as well teach Ancient Astronaut theory as well.

 

Then macroevolution doesn't either, as it is merely a theory as to the origins of human existence.  Science is meant to deal in the observable.  If it isn't observable, then it isn't science.

 

You either teach all viewpoints of things that can't be proved in a science classroom or none of them, in my opinion.

Quote:While I agree with this statement, I think that the theory of macroevolution also needs to be taught as a possible explanation for diversity of life, and not as undisputed fact.

 

Only a fool would disagree with microevolution--i.e., adaptations within a species group.

 

However, the idea that all life began as a single celled organism has no proof to support it and violates the laws of thermodynamics.  Therefore, not only would you need an event that created life on this planet (which there are varied explanations for, one of which being extraterrestrial seeding), you would need a separate event to trigger mutation on a grand scale with each macro-level change from species to species occurring.  The mathematical odds of that are ridiculously small.

 

As such, I have no issue with macroevolution and creationism being taught side by side in a science classroom, as long as there is no religious bent.  It's pretty easy to say "Some believe a supreme being created life, while others believe it was a cosmic event that created the first single-celled organism, which changed over millions of years to become multiple different species."

 

I know that this is not a popular opinion.

 

Bingo.  What is so wrong with teaching that?

Quote:Then macroevolution doesn't either, as it is merely a theory as to the origins of human existence.  Science is meant to deal in the observable.  If it isn't observable, then it isn't science.

 

You either teach all viewpoints of things that can't be proved in a science classroom or none of them, in my opinion.

 

Science isn't just observable.    And Macroevolution has PLENTY OF evidence supporting it.  Just because you don't like the evidence doesn't mean you get to say there isn't any.   Meanwhile there's no evidence of creationism.  If there were, then it'd be fine to teach it in a science class.

Quote:Science isn't just observable, it's testable.  And Macroevolution is testable, and there is evidence supporting it.  Just because you don't like the evidence doesn't mean you get to say there isn't any.

 

Who said I don't like the evidence?  At worst, I'm ambivalent toward it, as I don't believe it to exist.

 

Do you have a link to the information you're mentioning?  I'd love to read it.

Quote:So you support her because lots of other people don't? Seriously??

Troll-hearted.

Quote:Bingo. What is so wrong with teaching that?

It's not a lesson. It would be like in Algebra saying "some people think math is stupid and a total waste of time because we all walk around with calculators now" it's a moot point.

Quote:Who said I don't like the evidence?  At worst, I'm ambivalent toward it, as I don't believe it to exist.

 

Do you have a link to the information you're mentioning?  I'd love to read it.

First, I think we have to clear something up:


Are you talking about macroevolution (which has fossil evidence, suggesting a common ancestor between man and ape as well as loads of other evidences)

 

or are you talking about Abiogenesis (The theory by which all living organisms evolved from a single lifeform)

 

I mean you seem to be conflating the two, but they're two very different things.  I'm less familiar with abiogenesis than I am macroevolution, but you do have evidence for abiogenesis that you can actually examine.  Results like the organic amino acids produced by the Miller-Urey experiment (combined with geological, chemical, and biological evidence).  I mean there's evidence to examine.  It's all there.  (If you're interested, you should probably look deeper into it.  Like I said, I'm not that familiar with it myself.  But you can't say "There's no evidence!" if you haven't really looked into it.  You've just assumed it doesn't exist.  I wonder how deeply you've actually looked into this if you've come to that conclusion.  I mean you even say you dont dislike the evidence, you just believe it doesn't exist.  But it definitely does, you have to actually read up on it though.  Whether it actually convinces you that abiogenesis is the best answer to origins of life on earth is another question altogether).  It's not accepted as fact, but it's definitely a legitimate theory worth discussing in a science classroom.   What evidence is there to examine for creationism?  What evidence could you even expect?  I mean I'm not dismissing creationism as a legitimate belief.  But that's what it is--a belief.  Not really a scientific theory.  At least not until there's evidence for it that can be examined.  Same goes for Ancient Astronaut Theory.  I mean that's the whole point of science.  Examining the evidence.  

Quote:Then macroevolution doesn't either, as it is merely a theory as to the origins of human existence. Science is meant to deal in the observable. If it isn't observable, then it isn't science.


You either teach all viewpoints of things that can't be proved in a science classroom or none of them, in my opinion.

Evolution is evolution. There is no micro and macro evolution. And you can observe your so called "macro evolution" over time. Gregory Mendel did it with the pea plant. Breeders do it with dogs and other animals all the time.

Quote:It's not a lesson. It would be like in Algebra saying "some people think math is stupid and a total waste of time because we all walk around with calculators now" it's a moot point.

 

Actually it is a lesson on so many levels.  It teaches the difference between creationism and evolution and should include why people believe one concept or the other.  Neither is "right" or the "definitive proof" of it being right one way or the other.  It opens minds and allows people to think for themselves rather than accept the "answer" defined by somebody else.  The key thing is to allow people to think and resolve the answer for themselves.

 

 

The statement "Some believe a supreme being created life, while others believe it was a (cosmic event that created the first single-celled organism, which changed over millions of years to become multiple different species)." is not false.  Neither entity (people that believe that a supreme being created life) or (people that believe that is was a cosmic event) is 100% correct.

Quote:Actually it is a lesson on so many levels.  It teaches the difference between creationism and evolution and should include why people believe one concept or the other.  Neither is "right" or the "definitive proof" of it being right one way or the other.  It opens minds and allows people to think for themselves rather than accept the "answer" defined by somebody else.  The key thing is to allow people to think and resolve the answer for themselves.

 

 

The statement "Some believe a supreme being created life, while others believe it was a (cosmic event that created the first single-celled organism, which changed over millions of years to become multiple different species)." is not false.  Neither entity (people that believe that a supreme being created life) or (people that believe that is was a cosmic event) is 100% correct.

 

Science isn't based on faith. I'm a Christian and feel creationism has no place in the class room. 

Quote:Did you catch the discussion on special needs kids and vouchers?

No haven't looked much into it in just for school vouchers and choice. Fill me in what's the issue?

Quote:Creationism isn't a science, so it doesn't belong in a science classroom. There is no scientific aspect to it. Otherwise you might as well teach Ancient Astronaut theory as well.

That's fine let parent choose if they want to send their kids to creationism schools. Why does it matter?

Quote:That's fine let parent choose if they want to send their kids to creationism schools. Why does it matter?

 

They can decide.  But they can't spend taxpayer dollars on it.  If they want to spend their own money, fine.