Creationism in schools

When she is 18 she can make all the decisions she wants, but children do not make decision in my house.

If I do not approve of church - she isn't going... I will let her gain the knowledge of experimentation, but that's about as far as I will let her go if I don't approve...

 

False dillema.

Science is alternatively packaged religious dogma; therefore creationism being the same must be taught in science class.

 

Hmmmm.... I don't think so. Science is open to change, religion is false.

If it were false 2,000 years ago, it will be just as wrong today.

 

Teach about it in social studies, along with all the other creation stories from other religions. Keep it out of science class, though. It has no place there.

 

Science is questions that may never be answered.

Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

Do the math mate.

 

Excellent Idea!!!

 

You are stating that science is the matter of personal opinions - I think so/I don’t think so. I fully agree with you. Can we be done and move to the next step?

You are stating that if something is not open to change then it is false. Can you illustrate your statement by facts and arguments? Otherwordly what kind of logic are using?

You are stating that if it were false 2,000 years ago, it will be just as wrong today.
Popular opinion says that 2000 years ago scientists thought that the statement that earth was revolving around the sun was false. Is this statement still wrong today?

 

:/
You are proving my point. Through scientific advancement the notion of a heliocentric solar system was accepted to be true, the older point of view was cast away.

So yes, the idea that the universe revolves around the earth is as incorrect today as it was 2,000 years ago.

Its obvious, what is your point?

 

Bwahaaaa! That's a good one.

Religion = Science. We've got a live one here folks!

 

Your point I replied to was quoted: I"f it were false 2,000 years ago, it will be just as wrong today.
It was not: "if it false today it was false 2000 years ago."

The point now is that you keep on spinning the way you feel like. This the main methodology of science. Thus C-m has te be taught along science.

 

Science is not a matter of personal opinion. It is a matter of repeatable results under controlled conditions.

 

OK we're moving. Let's see what would be the measurement which would allow to determine what is science and waht is not.

Question : how long ago the earth was formed.

1. Answer from science
2. Answer from C-m (and link)

 

The statement I was answering was :

Originally Posted by Wolverine
Hmmmm.... I don't think so. Science is open to change, religion is false.


I think so/i don't think so is a matter of personal opinion.

It is also a matter of personal opinion and bigotry.

 

Please show application of this measurement to evolution is a joke part XIV

Please show it is not applicable to C-m

 

Actually no they can't, even private schools must follow the curriculum set by the dept of education.

 

You make absolutely no sense because you go rambling on about the relevance of an obscure point without actually explain what your point is.

 

You will have to forgive me for not knowing the ins and outs of your education system.

That seems more than reasonable.

 

My fellow atheists/agnostics may not like me for this, but I have an interesting idea. I would LOVE to take a class that examined a wide variety of alternatives when it comes to the beginning. It could be sort of a science/philosophy class mixed together. It could start out by saying the scientific community is in agreement that evolution occurred, and they think the universe began with the big bang (I believe in evolution btw). And afterwards discuss various religion traditions answer to the question, and see how they match up with the scientific account. Then maybe talk about the future of what scientists may say, by examining some alternatives proposed by scientists that don't get a lot of mainstream support at this time.

But back to answering your original question. As you can see, I don't have a problem with teaching creationism or anything as long as it is pointed out that this is what theists believe and not necessarily endorsed as the absolute truth, and go from there. However, I would not advocate teaching it IN a biology class or anything like that. I would be vehemently opposed.

 

I like that idea, but not in a science class.

 

Invalid question. Science is not a physical object.

 

Standard theistic disingenuousness. The scary part is that he probably thinks he makes sense.

 

Intellect is not a physical object. The fact that the IQ of an atheist shows zero and the collective IQ of 2 atheists shows zero or in other words shows non-existence does not mean that IQ is invalid measurement. It is the easiest and the most efficient way to differentiate an atheist or a group of atheists from other bipeds.

Since atheists believe that there is no definite measurement, no litmus test which can differentiate science from personal opinions, beliefs and bigotry; C-m is qualified to be taught in science class. Only atheists cannot understand such a simple point.

 

Hey look, a dumb post.

 

Teaching creationism in a science class makes about as much sense as teaching cooking in a calculus class.

 

1:29 "Mm'kay."