I know that...which is why I said would be.
By how much have they have help been helped?
Well there certainly are better choices available, but the facts belie your assertion.
Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
I know that...which is why I said would be.
By how much have they have help been helped?
Well there certainly are better choices available, but the facts belie your assertion.
what I have been trying to get across to you brainiacs....something none of you seem to be able to comprehend......mainly because your minds are like a steel trap....closed f*ckin tight....... The average person knows sweet f*ck all about physics.....astronomy....palientology...... not much more than the basics of biology....... They take the word of great men like Hawkings....they have "faith" that this man knows what he is talking about.... growing up they take the word of their teachers and the text books they learn from....they have "faith" that what they are being taught is the truth.
EVERYBODY takes somethings on faith...because NOBODY can know everything personally....NOBODY has the ability to learn all things about everything. EVERYBODY relies on others to know what we personally do not or can not know.
EVERYBODY takes somethings on faith...because NOBODY can know everything personally....NOBODY has the ability to learn all things about everything. EVERYBODY relies on others to know what we personally do not or can not know.
The fallacy of comparing scientific research to religious docterine. If you can't see the problem with that there is nothing more I can say.
And when I try to show you how the average person can measure something seemingly only available to brainiacs, or to those who pay attention in physics class, with materials found in the majority of homes, you spout off your habitual trash.
Apparently the irony in this contrast of the thread and immediate topic is lost on you...:lol:
Gerry, if you're trying to be so obvious as to be irrelevant, then bravo for a job well done.
And when I try to show you how the average person can measure something seemingly only available to brainiacs, or to those who pay attention in physics class, with materials found in the majority of homes, you spout off your habitual trash.
Apparently the irony in this contrast of the thread and immediate topic is lost on you...:lol:
Gerry, if you're trying to be so obvious as to be irrelevant, then bravo for a job well done.
F*ckit,...yer all jest to dern smrt fer me.
If you were zealous, hostile and/or killing people because they didn't share your belief... then I'd be against your behavior, not your belief.
Beliefs can't be proven wrong.
Even if I went to the dark side of the moon and didn't see anything to substantiate your belief that still would not prove your belief incorrect or flawed.
I agree with you, earh_as_one, but we were not talking about that. Are both the opinions (that dark side of moon has a swimming pool filled with maple syrup and it doesn’t) equally valid in the eyes of science? I don’t think they are. Does the side which says that the idea is nonsense have to prove that no such swimming pool exists? I don’t think it does, while Wulfie evidently is saying that it does.
I am saying that in science, only one side has the burden of proof (the side that proposed a theory) while Wulfie is saying that both sides have the burden of proof (that if I propose that Santa Claus exists, the other side has to prove that he doesn’t exist). That is what the argument is about.
I doubt anyone will ever be able to prove or disprove God in my lifetime.
Instead of ‘my lifetime’, try ‘never’.
If believing "that on the dark side of moon there is a detached house, with floor made form Swiss cheese and the swimming pool filled with maple syrup" made you a better, stronger person, I'd fully support your right to believe.
An admirable sentiment, and one with which I agree. But that doesn’t mean that you have the burden of proof to prove that such a swimming pool doesn’t exist. If I want people to take me seriously, burden of proof is upon me to prove my theory. I saying that such a pool exists and you saying that it doesn’t does not carry the same weight in scientific circles. That is what the argument is about.
Beliefs can't be proven wrong.
Even if I went to the dark side of the moon and didn't see anything to substantiate your belief that still would not prove your belief incorrect or flawed.
I agree with you, earh_as_one, but we were not talking about that. Are both the opinions (that dark side of moon has a swimming pool filled with maple syrup and it doesn’t) equally valid in the eyes of science? I don’t think they are. Does the side which says that the idea is nonsense have to prove that no such swimming pool exists? I don’t think it does, while Wulfie evidently is saying that it does.
I am saying that in science, only one side has the burden of proof (the side that proposed a theory) while Wulfie is saying that both sides have the burden of proof (that if I propose that Santa Claus exists, the other side has to prove that he doesn’t exist). That is what the argument is about.
I doubt anyone will ever be able to prove or disprove God in my lifetime.
Instead of ‘my lifetime’, try ‘never’.
If believing "that on the dark side of moon there is a detached house, with floor made form Swiss cheese and the swimming pool filled with maple syrup" made you a better, stronger person, I'd fully support your right to believe.
An admirable sentiment, and one with which I agree. But that doesn’t mean that you have the burden of proof to prove that such a swimming pool doesn’t exist. If I want people to take me seriously, burden of proof is upon me to prove my theory. I saying that such a pool exists and you saying that it doesn’t does not carry the same weight in scientific circles. That is what the argument is about.
Metaphorically interpreted religious beliefs will always remain in harmony with science.
Earth_as_one, many (probably) most religions don’t have a problem with evolution, it is the religious right (and perhaps some extreme, militant Catholics) who go nuts over it.
Catholic religion has made peace with evolution. According to Catholic beliefs, evolution tells us how man was evolved; religion tells us why man was evolved. Catholics believe that evolution was God’s way to create man on earth. Such a belief is not in conflict with evolution.
I don’t think Hindus or Muslims have a problem with evolution either. In fact, there is reason to believe that ancient Hindus were familiar with the process of evolution, they were aware that there probably was a progression from simpler life to more complex life.
Thus according to Hindu mythology, God has appeared nine times on earth. He has appears as a fish, as a turtle, as a boar, half man half lion, a dwarf man and the last four incarnations have been as men.
Notice the progression from simple to complex? Ancient Hindus probably were aware of the concept of evolution.
So it is only the religious right which goes apoplectic, berserk over the concept of evolution.
Earth_as_one, many (probably) most religions don’t have a problem with evolution, it is the religious right (and perhaps some extreme, militant Catholics) who go nuts over it.
Catholic religion has made peace with evolution. According to Catholic beliefs, evolution tells us how man was evolved; religion tells us why man was evolved. Catholics believe that evolution was God’s way to create man on earth. Such a belief is not in conflict with evolution.
I don’t think Hindus or Muslims have a problem with evolution either. In fact, there is reason to believe that ancient Hindus were familiar with the process of evolution, they were aware that there probably was a progression from simpler life to more complex life.
Thus according to Hindu mythology, God has appeared nine times on earth. He has appears as a fish, as a turtle, as a boar, half man half lion, a dwarf man and the last four incarnations have been as men.
Notice the progression from simple to complex? Ancient Hindus probably were aware of the concept of evolution.
So it is only the religious right which goes apoplectic, berserk over the concept of evolution.
Do you really think that these beliefs have been proven wrong? Not if you talk to people who believe that tomatoes are poisonous, that earth is flat, or that earth is the centre of the universe.
That is the problem, Toro, that is the reason why I am reluctant to use quote many times. I prefer to copy and paste what other person has said. It is quicker that way and has more flexibility.
SirJosephPorter said:
"Catholic religion has made peace with evolution. According to Catholic beliefs, evolution tells us how man was evolved; religion tells us why man was evolved. Catholics believe that evolution was God’s way to create man on earth. Such a belief is not in conflict with evolution."
Is is too much to ask that the Left be as tolerant and understanding as the Roman Catholic Church?
"Catholic religion has made peace with evolution. According to Catholic beliefs, evolution tells us how man was evolved; religion tells us why man was evolved. Catholics believe that evolution was God’s way to create man on earth. Such a belief is not in conflict with evolution."
Is is too much to ask that the Left be as tolerant and understanding as the Roman Catholic Church?
No, I mean biology has nothing to do with this issue. People are making something out of nothing.
The government is trying to take people that are not willing to participate and getting them to participate. It's a good thing.
That's a good question. In Alberta, the current system gives funding on a per student basis. According to the Education Minister this equals 9,200 per student on average however I'm sure this includes building costs so 100 more students would not equal $920,000 but it would probably be significant nonetheless.
Is is too much to ask that the Left be as tolerant and understanding as the Roman Catholic Church?
The catholic church is an opportunistic organization. Back in the sixties when people were leaving the church in droves, the church started changing their tune on a lot of doctrines because they were losing revenue.
The church has always absorbed the beliefs of other religions in order to suck people into the religion. Thus, the whole Mother Mary story was stolen from the Celts. The church took the Celts Gaia (Mother Earth) and turned her into Mary mother of JC. They took away the power of the high priestesses by turning them into nuns to be concubines for the priesthood.
There are hundreds of cases where the church has amalgamated doctrines of other religions in order to win over converts. And it was all done in the name of the almighty dollar. The church is not a religion so much as it is a political entity and land holding company. Over the last few decades they have had to sell off some of their holdings to pay for all the child molestation charges and the dwindeling attendence (read dwindeling revenue).
Sure they are going to say their is no conflict between their doctrines and evolution. Thay will say anything to get their revenues back up.
The catholic church is an opportunistic organization. Back in the sixties when people were leaving the church in droves, the church started changing their tune on a lot of doctrines because they were losing revenue.
The church has always absorbed the beliefs of other religions in order to suck people into the religion. Thus, the whole Mother Mary story was stolen from the Celts. The church took the Celts Gaia (Mother Earth) and turned her into Mary mother of JC. They took away the power of the high priestesses by turning them into nuns to be concubines for the priesthood.
There are hundreds of cases where the church has amalgamated doctrines of other religions in order to win over converts. And it was all done in the name of the almighty dollar. The church is not a religion so much as it is a political entity and land holding company. Over the last few decades they have had to sell off some of their holdings to pay for all the child molestation charges and the dwindeling attendence (read dwindeling revenue).
Sure they are going to say their is no conflict between their doctrines and evolution. Thay will say anything to get their revenues back up.
They haven't been helped financially by the bill. They have been helped financially by having the Mennonite population integrate their kids with the local school system (since funding is tied to student population). This was done a number of years ago as a pilot project. All this bill is trying to do is take this "pilot project" and make it "policy".
As for funding, I'm not sure where I got the number $9,200 but I just googled "how much do school boards get per pupil Alberta" and found this...
Vue Weekly : Edmonton's 100% Independent Weekly : School boards in province call for more education funding to deal with deficits
Burdett and Grassy Lake schools (the ones I am familiar with) have been a roaring success and Bow Island's Senator Gershaw High School is starting to get Mennonite kids not just enrolling, but graduating high school.
Measuring something as intangible as the speed of light is heavily based on assumptions and other (accepted theories)... this is the most glaring fact that is associated with the above.
The notion of manipulation of the existing and accepted mathematical principles can yield that 1+1= 0,1 or 2 exposes the Achilles-Heel in the argument.
ger, I get what you're saying, and I'll try to keep my post respectful towards those of religious beliefs... but you know I struggle with the whole idea of organized religion and this subject is one of the key reasons why... so bear with me if you can...
The suggestion that the state should allow parents to exclude certain scientific information from their children's education for religious reasons raises at least 2 concerns for me. (btw, I do believe that allowing parents to pull kids from class for these reasons is just a PC tap dance around actually dropping curriculum - the end result is the same)
First of all, this will open a hell of a Pandora's box in terms of setting precedents. What else will religion be allowed to block from a child's education? With the proliferation of various religions within Canada, it's not at all outside the realm of possibility that allowing this could be a prelude to a flood of objections to other material that is currently taught. To my eyes, this is looking an awful lot like another huge slide downhill under the umbrella of that bastion of human rights gone awry: Political Correctness... another good idea taken so far to the extreme, it's a complete bastardization of it's original intent. IMO.
ahem... anyway, back to education and religion lolll....
In Canada, we have determined a curriculum of education that we have deemed as a nation of educators, is a minimum standard of knowledge with which we should be arming our children to go forth and become productive and informed members of society. Arbitrarily pulling significant chunks of fact from curricula not only negates our rights as a society to insist upon a full and complete education for our children, it rather nicely creates fertile ground for the social malady of ignorance to flourish - lacking the information needed to make informed decisions when religious doctrine and science disagree is robbing children of the arena in which they will acquire those critical thinking skills I raised in my first post.
I've been taught that keeping people in the dark is one of the first tenets of crowd control. If a religion - ANY religion is to stand on its' own merit, it should be able to easily withstand a full education in any subject - without eliminating key and fundamental aspects.
The main question this raises for me is why on earth any one that's raising their kids in this country is unable or unwilling to sit their kids down at the kitchen table and discuss with them why their specific religion does not support what they've been taught in school. If a child, once armed with facts, is able to effectively refute information based on doctrine .... well, you see how I struggle with not only religion, but the methods it has to resort to if it's to stay alive in today's society...
Last edited: