That takes care of black holes.,...... what about the rest that I mentioned.....the make up of 95% of the "known" universe......
Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
That takes care of black holes.,...... what about the rest that I mentioned.....the make up of 95% of the "known" universe......
You can find enough evidence from navigating from the original link I gave if you had a sincere interest in the matter. Look into weak lensing, baryonic acoustic oscillations, and supernovae data.
Now, empirically prove at least 1 statement about a personal god, as I have proved three of your demands. I do not need beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'd be happy with a balance of probabilities.
You haven't "proven" sweet piss all....Scientists can't even agree on the existence of any of these things....Black matter and black energy, at this point in time, can not be proven...it is ponly postulated by "some" scientists based on THIER interpratation of their observations. Guess f*cking work.......
At least "I" don't take everything any of the churches tell me at face value.....at least "I" can decide to discard that which to me doesn't make sense or seem right.... you f*cking "brainiacs" seem to take EVERYTHING science tells you at face value......unless down the road science finally admits they f*cked up and tells you something different..
Your perception of my sincerity is not what is at issue.
You speak of defining time, distance or the foundations of the mathematics you wish to employ in the model(s).... The very heart of your axioms are based on some form of assumption.
Using the speed of light example is best... That 'theory' is/was (initially) based on physical principles observed exclusively on Earth. Extrapolation of the theory extended into space despite the reality that there was/is very little known about it.
With this in mind, many find it entirely unreasonable that a factual and concrete statement can be made about the speed of light. (Hell, there is still some debate over wave theory/particle theory)
Evidence is evidence. You follow the most likely explanation based on the evidence. If you choose to follow another interpretation, that's fine, but you had better be able to show where you are right and the other interpretation is wrong. It is how we get to the actuality of things. People question scientific findings all the time. What usuallly prevails, however, is the best explanation that fits the facts.
Nope..... you are, basically, using the same argument that theoligins use. They say they have "evidence"...you say you have "evidence", when in reality all of ya are taking your best guess on what you already believe. Biggest difference, most people that believe in God and God's hand will say that their "beliefs" are also based on some "faith".....something those that pin all their "beliefs" on science refuse to admit.
What I'm finding is that those that believe only in science are just as closed minded as those that take the Bible at face value. Neither is willing to admit the limitations of their "world view".
As a specieces, our knowledge of the universe around us is VERY limited. To discount ANYTHING is arrogant in the least. There is far too much that we do NOT understand. There is far too much that science, on it's own, can NOT explain.
To take an anology to the extreme....... scientists postulating about what the remaining 95% of the universe is made up of that they can not explain is really no different than the postulations of primitive man looking up at the night sky and deciding what those little lights twinkling above were. They made their best guess based on what they could observe.
Yes, I know, as our ability to "see" more increases so will our understanding( no different than primitive man) but who's to say that as our ability to "see" improves that we won't "find" another "tree of knowledge"?
The silliest thing about this argument is that evolution does not contradict creationism. God never did tell us how he created the animals. Various, simple animals evolving into more complex creatures may have just been God's plan. I am not arguing either side but it seems to me that this bill will not help creationists to prove that evolution wrong. It is just an attempt to stifle one side of the argument and that never works.
loll gerry! I'm disappointed. You took the easy way to refute me. I stated pretty unequivocally that for those very reasons religion lets me down. There's no way it can ever be right once it lays down a set of criteria to serve as the foundation for it's doctrines. Once you carve something in stone, you're pretty much hooped for making changes, or for NOT making changes when needed.
Science at least is humble enough to say that what we know right now is what we know right now... and is subject to change upon further investigation and discovery.
Relgion negates itself as soon as it does that, and when it refuses to acknowledge new information as it surfaces. Hooped I tells ya, hooped!
Have a great Sunday afternoon - it's gorgeous here.
Someday you and I should try to have a discussion on the difference between religion and spirituality. You might find we have more in common in this regard than ya think. ;-)
No...this bill is nothing of the sort....this bill is a way to allow small rural communities that have a large menonite population keep their public schools open by bringing the children of the menonite communities into those public schools. It takes a road block away for those communities.
Personally, I think it complicates the issue to look at it in terms of religion.
For me, it boils down to the question of, what right does a parent have to pull a child from curriculum that they view as being flawed? At what point does a parent have control over their child's education, versus the government having control to decide what your child MUST learn (or you are at fault and face legal ramifications)?
I personally would prefer my kids get what I consider a 'flawed' course, so long as it means I can teach them critical thinking by explaining the other side of the argument at home. But not all parents want that.
The curriculum being taught in school has changed over the years, and there have been content and methodologies which have been challenged and changed. To think that the government is always right, always just, in the way they choose to teach our children, is just plain wrong. And while I agree that evolution is a sound theory, it scares me to think that people would strip parents of their right to raise their kids according to their own god conscience, and force them to swallow government curriculum with no recourse whatsoever.
For me, it boils down to the question of, what right does a parent have to pull a child from curriculum that they view as being flawed? At what point does a parent have control over their child's education, versus the government having control to decide what your child MUST learn (or you are at fault and face legal ramifications)?
I personally would prefer my kids get what I consider a 'flawed' course, so long as it means I can teach them critical thinking by explaining the other side of the argument at home. But not all parents want that.
The curriculum being taught in school has changed over the years, and there have been content and methodologies which have been challenged and changed. To think that the government is always right, always just, in the way they choose to teach our children, is just plain wrong. And while I agree that evolution is a sound theory, it scares me to think that people would strip parents of their right to raise their kids according to their own god conscience, and force them to swallow government curriculum with no recourse whatsoever.
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.
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 rational thought behind the statement is not scientific, its proof of closed mind.
In some ways this is semantics but it is an important distinction to make. Its also why the Aetheism vs Deism argument may never be won, because there is no proof one way or the other, only speculation, intuition or "faith" (unless perhaps a God appears in front of every human being and makes itself known as such).
Have you read the bill? Do you have any inside knowledge of what the bill is or is supposed to accomplish? You have assumed the purpose of the bill is to stifle one side of the argument. You are wrong.
So then, the question is, are you as open minded as the Mennonite population. Are you willing to make an attempt to understand the bill before you criticize it. Are you willing to facilitate others viewpoints like the bible-thumping Mennonites are...or are you just going to base your options on faulty information and half truths.
Okay... I'm late to the game with this thread, but this jumped out at me as abjectly false.
Not all families have the choice of leaving one parent at home, and not all have the choice of paying to put their kids in private school. Any 'free' schooling in Alberta teaches evolution. And the curriculum for home schooling still follows the public school curriculum. You're expected to follow it.
Nope. Religious "evidence" is hearsay. Scientific evidence is demonstrable. Of course some people have faith that what science says is real. No-one can know all of what science says. I take it for granted that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. However, if I questioned the right person about it, I have no doubt that person could show me that water is made from those elements. The religious just take it for granted that what the Bible says is true without questioning that the "evidence" for what it says is truth comes from its own pages.
Yup.
Yes. But science is not willing to sit on its butt and accept stuff without evidence. Religion takes whatever some book or other says as fact.
Exactly. You go with your evidence. People used to think lightening was caused by some angry ghod. Now we know it is a meteorological phenomenon that has to do with the discharge of stored electrical energy.
It's a possibility. Perhaps we can develop some sense of whether something is real or not without needing evidence somewhere along the line. Until then, science is what we use to explain stuff with some degree of reliability.
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?