Creationism in schools

What kitchen are you referring to? I'm not currently in a kitchen, "hot" or otherwise. And please define "hot", that is a purely subjective term.

 

wiki is always suspect and not acceptable for any Uni research paper...it maybe accurate but I use it to reference more legitimate sources, when I do quote wiki as a source I accept that it is up to dispute/question which is fair IMO...

 

The Wikipedia information isn't erroneous, your understanding of it is. According to that article, what are scientific laws and how are they created?

 

The kitchen refers to this thread. So, yes, you are in a kitchen in a manner. Hot would make reference to an uncomfortable environmental condition. Yes! uncomfortable is also subjective and that is why I asked if it were too 'hot' in the kitchen for you... looking for your opinion of the environmental condition of this thread. I really do hope that you can comprehend what has been written.

 

If you had read the article, then you would not have been required to ask me "what are scientific laws and how are they created?", you would already know, unless your comprehension of what was written there is lacking.

 

When did this become a Uni where research papers are being generated? As for your acceptance of what is printed in wiki, I concur. On the other hand, like wiki, all printed material is suspect and is subject to the biases and prejudices of those that compiled the writing. If you were the writer of a document that you wanted published, would you include material that you know is going to be suspect? Would that document that you wanted published contain material that you would object to or that you were unwilling to accept?

 

I already know what it says, I want you to repeat in your own words how scientific laws are formed.

 

I disagree with this. Not that I subscribe to any absurd theory like some of the other crackheads out there ( Crack doesnt smoke its self ya know. ) But this IS America. You DO have the right to raise your child in the manner of your beliefs. Once you delve into this, you really are supressing religious freedom, and I just cant subscribe to that. Dont get me wrong. I think the big sky fairy is a joke, but in the end, I simply dont know. No one does. People should be allowed to practice their religion, and indoctrinate their children to boot. The freedom to Screw up your kids beyond repair is what America is all about after all.

 

Then you must be more specific. I have never head anyone refer to a forum thread as a "kitchen", nor do any of the definitions refer to anything remotely like an internet forum.

What kind of environmental condition? The word "hot" has many definitions, but it is most often use in the context of temperature.

As per your explanation above, you are using the word "kitchen" as a synonym for this thread, which is simply a dynamic construct of information stored in a database. As such, how can a collection of data hold any temperature, "hot" or otherwise?

It seems as though I comprehend very well. Perhaps you should be more specific when chosing which words to use during a conversation.

 

Teaching FACTS does not suppress religious freedom. FACT: There never was a global flood. There is not enough water, and such a thing would leave behind evidence that does not exist. FACT: We are not all descended from a single couple 6,000 years ago. We know this beyond a shadow of a doubt because of our work in genetic research. FACT: The earth is 4.5 bln years old, give or take.

If that goes against someones religious teachings, too bad, because their teachings are indisputably incorrect. Sorry.

Half of the population of the country, some 150,000,000 people give or take, still believe the world is only 6,000 years old. That is downright frightening.

 

The word "ignorant" refers to a lack of knowledge of some thing. As such, one pointing out that another that they are ignorant of a subject is in no way a personal attack or insult.

As an example, I do not know much about jet engines (aside from some general physics). It would not be a personal attack for someone to tell me that I am ignorant regarding jet engines.

 

here is a link. get educated. not feeling like taking time for you is far from the same as not knowing how mixed up you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

 

I happen to agree with you. And these things should'nt be a science class. The point I was making though, that you, as a parent, have ever right to tell your child when they come home from school, and tell them the teacher is speaking rubbish. Or you have the freedom to home school your child, in the belief system you deem correct. And no one has the right to prevent a parent from teaching their children that. Thats what I was saying. Regarding your "indoctrinate children" comment. I assumed you meant like.. forced undoctrination or something.

I know a few Young earth creationists, but most people I know are mainstream. Even among the religious. I cannot think the nubmer is anywhere NEAR that much or that high of a % hat believes in the literal 6000 year old earth.

 

http://www.straightdope.com/columns...ieves-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old

 

However, when someone makes such a claim about another person (that he or she is ignorant), then the one making the claim must have the proof to support his/her claim. In this case (the case of someone calling me ignorant of a particular subject matter) that person making the claim does not even know my real name, much less does that person know anything about my educational experience. Therefore, the claim is invalidated due to his/her lack of documented proof to support the claim. The claim itself was very broad and due to the breadth of that claim, I strongly suspect that the maker is equally uneducated as he/she would claim that I am.

 

Here is another word for you to consider: 'avoidance'. The act of avoidance is what you and several others are involved in when you attempt to ignore the definitions that have been presented by launching attacks against me and what you mistakenly believe to be my comprehension, understanding, education on the matters that have been brought up in this thread.

 

I tend to avoid various things. Mud puddles, drunks, street corner preachers, and people who are utterly unreasonable.

I dont tend to have a lot of patience with the willfully ignorant.
The more aggressive they are about it, the more its like wanting to go out in a sirocco.

I think you are beyond the reach or education or reasoned talk.

 

You have done nothing to dispel the notion that you are ignorant. You have not shown that you re in possession of correct understanding of science, theology, history, or even the English language. Why should I not make a statement about observable phenomena, namely your inability to show understanding, comprehension, and knowledge on any subject? You have done nothing to prove that you are not ignorant, rather, all evidence that can be observed strongly indicates ignorance of nearly all subjects on your part. If you were to demonstrate knowledge of the subjects at hand, I'd gladly rescind my statement on your ignorance.

 

So when someone disagrees with you on the use of particular words, they are 'unreasonable'? Interesting. Now how is it that you think that possibly you think that I am unreasonable?

Which of the following definitions are you attempting to use? Are you using that term as a reference to any particular person?
"ig·no·rant (gnr-nt)
adj.
1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed."

OK.

Well, everyone is fully entitled to think whatever they want (read my signature line). However, when causing those thoughts to manifest in the real world, a doorway is opened for many other problems.

 

Funny how it's ok for YOU not to be 100% literal. Some might call it a double standard, or even rank hypocrisy.

 

Where, specifically, have I denied others the opportunity to not be 'literal'?

 

Silly boy. Don't you realize that no-one on this forum have a private ownership of words wherein they could say "this is in my own words"?

 

Man, are you telling me that you have never heard that idiom before? Tell me how you think scientific laws are created without quoting the Wikipedia article.

 

No! I don't think that I have mentioned anything about an idiom.

One would not have to quote the Wikipedia article, one could carefully change a word here and there within the article by using synonyms and still say the same thing. I thought you might have learned that already, because that is a tactic used by a lot of folk on these forums. Would I do something like that???? Nah. I would simply refer you to the article and let you read it for yourself.

 

I read the article for myself. Since you are acting childish and refuse to answer a simple question, preferring instead to whine about commonly known idioms, I'll just skip to the next step.

"Are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty like mathematical theorems or identities, and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations."

This is a snippet from the Wikipedia article. Do you agree with what it says, especially the bolded parts?