He asked how poor fits into the equation, and your answer was 'it doesn't'. Sorry, but, that's pretty clear.
It doesn't fit into the question. That doesn't mean there are no poor people. It means that they don't fit into the equation.
Are you being purposefully obtuse. I've always expected more from you.
It did fit into the question I was asking wolf whether you think so or not.
Standing in your kid's way on the path to education is just as stupid as refusing medical assistance to another kid. Unfortunately, it's an economic reality in rural school districts that you have to please some very narrow-minded parents.
why in rural school districts? Urban school districts are immune from having narrow minded poor folk in them?
OK LG, some beliefs have been proven wrong. But the earth may indeed be flat and the center of the universe, because we still don't know how many dimensions exist or where the center of the universe is located.
When finally figure out how many dimensions define our universe, it might change the definition of "flat".
If we find out their are an infinite number of universes, then its likely the earth is the center of at least one of them.
Tell me, earth_as_one, what can time possibly give to help prove propositions about a personal god?
The point is, you don't need anything that time can give you. What is needed to prove the existence of a god has always and will always be the same. That is why it is not speculation, you have all the tools today that you will need tomorrow.
Time is going to hurt you. As time marches forward, people will realize more and more that they can live moral lives without the barbaric stories of the bible. As the clock ticks forward more and more of the universe will be explained leaving less rocks for a personal god to hid under. As people find peace in living a wise and peaceful life they will find their spirituality fulfilled in the manner of Epicurus and not exhausted in the fear of eternal torment.
It's a pity everyone seems so intent on making it a religion vs. science discussion.
I'd really be interested to hear more views on the right of a government to force a curriculum upon individuals, regardless of what popular concept it is that is being taught.
Perhaps it's the conspiracy theorists of this site rubbing off on me, but, I see no reason why a parent should have to breach their own good conscience to program their children in what the government teaches as 'truth'.
I was kind of hoping that the topic wouldn't get sidetracked, too.
We could talk about exactly what it is that gov't requires schools to do, though. Is it to cram as much propaganda into their sweet heads as possible? Is it to teach them how to think and prioritize what to think about? Is it to advance an agenda?
We home schooled a lot because we didn't like that it seemed like the first situation I mentioned that was what was happening (as well as a couple other reasons such as the school system was using out of date texts and a couple of the teachers seemed to be there simply to collect salary and had no interest in the students).
There isn't. Zan made the comment that the reason for the governments change was PC. In my mind, the PC change came when the government mandated that ONLY evolution and scientific study was to be taught in schools. This was the PC answer to the "non religious" zealots whine.
If we wanted to actually give our kids a complete education with the ability for them to decide and use cognitive reasoning to decide for themselves, we would teach all options and not just the PC one.
No reason why we can't discuss everything.
The government has a right to define education standards and then expect parents and schools to meet those standards or face consequences.
Children have a right to be exposed to modern scientific thought. Eventually they will be our doctors and engineers.
.........for gawd's sakes, my 14 year old daughter had to explain to her student math teacher that there's no 'e' at the end of pi. (yanno, the one which r squared loll)
I just think that allowing parents to decide which aspect of education they think should not be taught is a slippery slope - and is a set up for kids rights to a full and thorough education to be violated...
There is room to debate this imo. I think it should be an all or nothing endeavor. If religion is to be taught, then all religions should be taught. Equally. Or... none.
ermmm... it's likely that the ones who've been declined certain elements of their education may not be our doctors and engineers...
... hate to post and run, but there's a soccer game to get to...
I don't agree with this gerry... PC started as a nugget of a good idea somewhere in it's infancy ... but it has quickly blossomed into nothing more than a tool for zealots of all stripes to use to push their own agendas to a ridiculous level. If religion happens to be the flavour of the day, then hang on - tomorrow it'll be race, or gender or age or.....Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
This I do agree with. Teach it all - I'd be fantastic with that. What I'm not ok with is eliminating any aspect of what is considered to be fact at the present time in our society. As our knowledge grows, much of what we 'know' now will change. Teach that too... it's important for our children to know how we got from there to here. As for religion, it can't be taught as fact, but the theory of it should be taught, because it's a rich and significant aspect of our humanity, and there isn't a single one of us who hasn't been affected by the presence of religion in our individual and collective histories. By all means teach it all.
I agree, however on another side tangent, I don't believe our current system of establishing a 'standard' is doing any of our kids much of a favour. Working in a college setting allows me to see what level of literacy our youth are graduating with... and here's a good example of that - for gawd's sakes, my 14 year old daughter had to explain to her student math teacher that there's no 'e' at the end of pi. (yanno, the one...
The Quality of Lies
Propaganda and Prejudice in the Public Representation of Science
A report presented to the Royal Society Committee investigating "Best practice in communicating the results of new scientific research to the public."
John A. Hewitt MA PhD
This report contains seven sections:-
Introduction (external - login to view)
A summary of the purposes and motives behind this submission.
Science and the Press (external - login to view)
Concerning the ways in which science and scientists interact with the press, both the scientific press, and the circumstances in which they approach, or are approached by, the wider media.
Scientific Quality Control (external - login to view)
A discussion of peer review and citation analysis.
The way these systems operate in practice.
Their impact on the work of ordinary members of the scientific community is discussed.
The Author and his Work (external - login to view)
A discussion of the author's own work and history and his experience of scientific deception.
The term "lie" is defined.
Senior scientists, major institutes and major journals are named and discussed.
Scientific Deception as a Problem in Epistemology (external - login to view)
How that problem leads to a generalized form of evolutionary theory - bioepistemic evolution.
Bioepistemic Evolution and Humans (external - login to view)
The implications of bioepistemic evolution for -
Human sexual traits including homosexuality, sado-masochism and paedophilia.
The origins and nature of humour.
Conclusions and Recommendations (external - login to view)
A summary of the problems the structure of science creates for relations between science and the press and recommendations for alleviating those problems.
References (external - login to view)
Epilogue (external - login to view)
That's not completely correct. It's true that the Catholic Church has never accepted a literal interpretation of Bible as the the sole authority of faith as has fundamentalist Protestanism. It considers Genesis, at least the Creation story as allegorical, primarily moral and metaphorical.
But it is a theistic religion.. and completely rejects the central tenet of A-theistic Evolution.. that the universe is a product of random, accidental mutation. Its eschatology, the theology of final outcomes, of human destiny, is inextricably antithetical to Evolution's prime proposal.. survival of the fittest.
Evolution's final outcomes are always purely material, of genetic superiority and adaption and ultimately end in a fiery collapse of the universe. Its point is that all life about temporal sustenance of the species. It is here that its philosophical character is most evident.. and nothing could be farther from life's purpose and meaning as taught by the Catholic Church.
I also say one side has a burden of proof: whatever a claim, it is incumbent upon the claimant to prove their position. If you claim someone else's hypothesis,theory, or belief is erroneous, the burden of proof lays with you, to point out the error in their methodology or conclusion.Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
Back to your "example of the swimming pool of maple syrup on the moon" (I do love the way you use the most ridiculous examples possible). Your saying there is no such pool does not make it so. You add in evidence to support your argument such as the compounds used to fabricate the syrup or the pool are not indigenous/naturally occuring on the moon (not really proof but leads to speculation on the actually probability of the claim being borne out); that the temperature is so low that it would freeze any syrup solid (again not really proof); the vacuum wouldn't allow the syrup to maintain its cohesion but disperse it to try and equalize across the vacuum (OK now we're getting into a scientific reason why it couldn't happen); or that in the satellite surveillance photos of the area in question show no such construction (legitimate evidence). Now we have a reasonable evidence to support the hypothesis that there is no such pool (which can't be proven until we do an entire survey of the moon's surface). THAT is more on the road of scientific method: using physical evidence/experimental to support a hypothesis/theory. Just saying its nonsense without demonstrating any reasoning or...
I wish people would quit using the term "theory" so loosely: it has a definition -
Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions (external - login to view)
It's a bit extreme but I would not be surprised that someone would keep their kid from a class that taught about the bad aspects of fat simply because the parent was fat. Or keep a kid from a class in art because they were playing with a color the parent doesn't like. People are weird that way.
hehe The wife and kids like the game, too. I think it's ok but rugby is more fun for me. Have fun.
That is the problem Gilbert, the word ‘theory’ mean totally different in science and in everyday usage. In everyday usage, it means wild eyed, navel gazing speculation, something that has no evidence to support it. It can be dismissed by saying ‘oh, it is just a theory’.
In science, it refers to a set of scientific postulates which make predictions which can be tested experimentally, thereby giving evidence in support of the theory or disproving the theory.
Thus the fact that Theory of Relativity, Theory if Evolution, Theory of gravitation etc. are still standing today means that in the more than 100 years that they have been around, nobody has found any evidence to disprove these theories.
In general the longer the theory is standing, the greater the chance that it is realistic. Theory of evolution has been around more than 150 years, and it is one of the most solid scientific theories around.
But religious right cleverly confuses the two definitions of ‘theory’, and claims that evolution does not have any evidence to support it, it is just a ‘theory’.
You don't understand the problem at all. The problem isn't that we don't know it is there, the problem is that we don't know what it is. Take my suggestion, look up the evidence, it is unequivocable that there is something there which we do not understand.
You are completely ignorant on these issues so I suggest you drop them.
Only a fool bumps into something in the dark and says "It does not exist," simply because they cannot see it. You are that fool.