Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law

[Cannuck]

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.

LOL - that's why there is 35,000+ Christian denominations in the US alone. The whole protestant movement stems from religious folks unwillingness to question. :lol:

Religion takes whatever some book or other says as fact.

You keep setting them up and I'll keep knokin' em down....Change in religious beliefs about slavery, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

 

[Niflmir]

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..

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.

 

[lone wolf]

why in rural school districts? Urban school districts are immune from having narrow minded poor folk in them?

You are interpreting.

Urban school districts are a lot more densely populated so if you have a few kids go to private schools, the loss of subsidy that goes with them doesn't hit as hard. Narrow-minded people are everywhere. The evidence is right here online.

And how does poor even fit into the question?

 

[Cannuck]

And how does poor even fit into the question?

It doesn't. Ours is probably one of the richest per capita communities in Alberta if not Canada. As of now, I don't know a single person within 100 miles collecting EI

 

[karrie]

And how does poor even fit into the question?

well, narrow minded rich people can generally afford private school, or home schooling with a doctored curriculum. Narrow minded poor people on the other hand, are sort of at the mercy of the public or separate school system, regardless of where they may live, urban or rural.

 

[darkbeaver]

No. Scientists do not take things on faith. We take things on empirical grounds. I study relativity, I have looked into the things that Hawking said, I know the limitations of his various theorems. Growing up, I challenged things that were said to me, such as Newton's second law.
I would have resisted comment had you used science instead of scientists. As you know I have attempted to discuss the difference with no real success. I can help you find thousands of scientists who do exactly what you suggest they do not.


Knowing something about physics does not make me any smarter than anybody else. All that it means is that I have spent more time than others studying it, and that is not something to be proud of any more than someone who learns how to pave a road. If you have a genuine interest in knowing about some aspect of reality, than hey, scientists have looked into it and can give you the same understanding that they possess based on empirical evidence.




But you are showing a genuine lack of interest in possessing this knowledge. We are not asking you to take anything on faith. The evidence is there and if you ask for it, it will be given to you.Science is not opinion or belief, science is observation and model, it is prediction and verification and falsification.

So why is so much opinion and belief passed to the student and public as science including unitarian evolution and the big bang, dark matter/energy, black holes all of these have been sold as reality when scientifically they are unsupported fiction.

Oh boy. What we need is the reality of catastrophism coupled with evolution, the evidence of that is solid.
An Aristotelian Hangover
An Aristotelian Hangover
May 01, 2009

The astronomers responsible for the news feeds in our tabloids seem to have a profound disliking for the idea that the solar system, including the earth, has suffered catastrophic changes within the past few thousand years. This intellectual preference is never explicitly stated. It rather acts on the unconscious mindsets of theoreticians, for example when evidence for cratering on the planets is immediately, without a second thought, relegated to the eventful ‘early days’ of the solar system; when the possibility of unpredictable fluctuations in the planetary orbits is tacitly ignored; or when the pioneering work of plasma physicists like Kristian Birkeland or Hannes Alfvén does not rate a mention in standard textbooks on astronomy.

What causes otherwise intelligent thinkers to shut off their minds for alternatives that seem genuinely possible, if not perfectly viable? A conspiracy? Ill will? Naivety? Or an intellectual blind spot? From a historical point of view, the legacy of Aristotle may prove very instructive.

In his dialogues, Aristotle’s teacher, Plato, had happily speculated about cyclical episodes of destruction both on earth and on a cosmic level. One of his main interests was to incorporate ancient traditions about a reversal of the sun, a worldwide flood or a consuming fire into models that made scientific sense. For Plato, the realm of absolute, immutable perfection was not that of the stars and planets, but lay outside the material world altogether.

His junior, Aristotle, would have none of this. Downplaying any traditions about global floods and fires, Aristotle regarded the spheres of stars and planets themselves as unalterable, immune to any form of decay or change. To su



This state of affairs is hardly surprising. By nature, mathematicians are attracted to numerical precision, regularity and a cosmos running with a clockwork stability. For those with an instinctive visceral aversion to phenomena that are irregular, unpredictable or hard to measure and calculate, a universe with cometary intrusions, planets prone to orbital adjustments and stars of which the age and distance cannot be confidently inferred must be a nightmare.

Who is to say nature cares about a propensity for human number games? A scientist deserving of the name must bow to observational evidence and accept that good observations and traditions take precedence over theoretical preferences. Maths must be ancillary, not dominant, as the intellectual stupor of the Aristotelian outlook gives way to a Platonic curiosity and acceptance of what is.

 

[Cannuck]

And how does poor even fit into the question?

It doesn't. Ours is probably one of the richest per capita communities in Alberta if not Canada. As of now, I don't know a single person within 100 miles collecting EI

 

[lone wolf]

well, narrow minded rich people can generally afford private school, or home schooling with a doctored curriculum. Narrow minded poor people on the other hand, are sort of at the mercy of the public or separate school system, regardless of where they may live, urban or rural.

...but they all pay the same for schooling - whether the houses are every 66 feet or every mile. That gives rural school districts less tax base over much larger areas. The issue is whether the smaller schools have to close for lack of subsidy or not.

My guess is you live in the city.

 

[Niflmir]

I would have resisted comment had you used science instead of scientists. As you know I have attempted to discuss the difference with no real success. I can help you find thousands of scientists who do exactly what you suggest they do not.

Sure, and then they are no longer acting as scientists. A police officer can break the law even, there are countless cases of law enforcers being law breakers. This does not contradict what I say. The reason why other scientists will believe what one scientist does is because of its empirical reproducibility, not the faith of the one making the claim.

The essence of science is reproducibility. Nothing needs to be taken on faith.

 

[karrie]

...but they all pay the same for schooling - whether the houses are every 66 feet or every mile. That gives rural school districts less tax base over much larger areas. The issue is whether the smaller schools have to close for lack of subsidy or not.

My guess is you live in the city.

I've lived in both. If it's a matter of subsidy, I get what you're saying. Just, the way you first made it sound was that narrow minded people having to deal with the school systems was a phenomena unique to rural divisions, like urban folk are not narrow minded. It came off as 'rural folk are narrow minded hicks' frankly. Thus my question.

 

[karrie]

It doesn't. Ours is probably one of the richest per capita communities in Alberta if not Canada. As of now, I don't know a single person within 100 miles collecting EI

And you don't know of any families where both parents have to work? Families who can't just up and choose to put their kids into private school, or have one parent stay home to school their kids? Which magical corner of my province do you live in exactly? Because I've lived in numerous areas of Alberta, and I've met PLENTY of families that fit the bill of being too poor to choose either of those options. A family on EI would frankly probably be more able to choose homeschooling than most of the families I know.

 

[gerryh]

Sure, and then they are no longer acting as scientists. A police officer can break the law even, there are countless cases of law enforcers being law breakers. This does not contradict what I say. The reason why other scientists will believe what one scientist does is because of its empirical reproducibility, not the faith of the one making the claim.

The essence of science is reproducibility. Nothing needs to be taken on faith.

Yet black holes are taught as being fact....the Big Bang is taught in schools as being fact....yet there is NO conclusive evidence to support either as fact.

When talking about evolution...there are gaping holes in the time line which scientists have glossed over or filled with what they "think" fits or what they say is "logical" based on the previous and the following..... Science is nothing more than taking ahold of, and running with what best fits at this time.....untill such time that something else is found to fit better...in the big scheme of things...there are very few "facts" involved.

 

[Cannuck]

And you don't know of any families where both parents have to work? Families who can't just up and choose to put their kids into private school, or have one parent stay home to school their kids?

I don't know. I don't generally discuss peoples financial situation with them.

Which magical corner of my province do you live in exactly?

South eastern - Medicine Hat area.

Because I've lived in numerous areas of Alberta, and I've met PLENTY of families that fit the bill of being too poor to choose either of those options. A family on EI would frankly probably be more able to choose homeschooling than most of the families I know.

Does this negate what I said somehow?

 

[lone wolf]

I've lived in both. If it's a matter of subsidy, I get what you're saying. Just, the way you first made it sound was that narrow minded people having to deal with the school systems was a phenomena unique to rural divisions, like urban folk are not narrow minded. It came off as 'rural folk are narrow minded hicks' frankly. Thus my question.

Yes ... I'll have to remember to write the entire train of thought every time because in a forum folks do come in in the middle and don't see the engine :lol:....

 

[earth_as_one]

heheheheh
People used to believe that tomatoes were poisonous, the Earth was flat, and was the center of the universe.

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.

 

[coldstream]

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.

.

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.

 

[earth_as_one]

Give you more time, and you still will not show us a god.

You can't say that for certain. That's speculation on your part, unless you are able to foresee the future and understand the true nature of the universe.

 

[Niflmir]

Yet black holes are taught as being fact....the Big Bang is taught in schools as being fact....yet there is NO conclusive evidence to support either as fact.

When talking about evolution...there are gaping holes in the time line which scientists have glossed over or filled with what they "think" fits or what they say is "logical" based on the previous and the following..... Science is nothing more than taking ahold of, and running with what best fits at this time.....untill such time that something else is found to fit better...in the big scheme of things...there are very few "facts" involved.

Did you read the paper on Sagittarius A? Are you aware of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe data and its analysis? The evidence is more than sufficient. You are just lazy and refuse to look it up.

You are poorly informed on these subjects Gerry. The same is true of your knowledge about evolution. We do not want these things to be true of people in general and so the aim of schools is to provide them with an education in these subjects.

The operation of DNA is understood. The process of meiosis too. The mechanisms for these processes to coherently produce new species are understood. The sum of these understandings is evolutionary science. Which aspect of these do creationists have trouble with? The coherent mechanisms for producing new species because it is there that they want to posit the existence of a personal god. The problem that Darwin solved was to show people how nature can achieve this coherently.

There are proofs outside of archaeology and the fossil record (which is not nearly as incomplete as you seem to believe), it has been observed in bacterii since the time of penicilin's discovery. Zoologists have long known it was possible to force new species, our yellow friend the banana is one such example. That natural selection provides a coherent mechanism to produce new species is evident to all but those with preconceived notions about what this coherent mechanism should be.

The evidence is all around us. Some people just like to close their eyes. Governments should not let parents so easily close the eyes of their children.

 

[Niflmir]

You can't say that for certain. That's speculation on your part, unless you are able to foresee the future and understand the true nature of the universe.

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.

 

[earth_as_one]

It may appear we are making progress, but considering there are probably an infinite number of rocks in the universe, we may never flip them all over.

Atheism is as much a leap of faith as religion. Its why I'm agnostic.