*sigh* I was saying, Alberta has families that are too poor to choose private schools or homeschooling, regardless of EI rates, etc. So yes... it does negate your assertion that we don't have 'poor' families.
Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
*sigh* I was saying, Alberta has families that are too poor to choose private schools or homeschooling, regardless of EI rates, etc. So yes... it does negate your assertion that we don't have 'poor' families.
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'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'.
You are quoting the scientists bible and nothing more. You, tonnington, dexter, are zealots the same as those "bible thumpers" are that espouse the Bible is to be taken at face value.
I have read enough to know that evolution is not written in stone. That scientists and mankind know very little about what is out there and the majority of what is "known" is not much more than speculation.
Here's a nice quote that I like:
It's nice to see the disclaimer of "appear likely too" and the acknowledgement that science can not prove OR disprove "miracles" (as in the hand of God).
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics...an argument could be made that the reason for the resistance is not because of evolutionary change but in that there were always bacteria that was resistant, and with the use of antibiotics, the non resistant bacteria has been killed off leaving only the resistant bacteria to live and multiply.
I'm not as stupid as you would like to think, but it is becoming very obvious that you are very closed minded to the idea that science is NOT the be all and end all.
No it doesn't.
The thread is clear. I asked you the same question twice, and got two different answers from you. When I asked you for some supporting material... well here we are now.
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.
There are genuine resons why you shouldn't believe the bible. To me atheism doesn't mean "not believing in any gods" as much as it means "disbelieving the gods on the market." I am not arguing that there are not powers greater than us, I am arguing that those powers have not appeared to us, begotten a fleshy son, and so on.
When you have the view of atheism that I have, it is not a leap of faith at all. Note in my posts the denying of a personal god, one who takes an interest in its created subjects (humans). This is the deity that evolution brushes away (because we were created by the forces natural not the forces supernatural). It is unreasonable to insist that there is a deity interested in us who hasn't shown any interest in us.
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.
Religion has no place in the classroom outside of theology.
Children have a right to be exposed to modern scientific thought. Eventually they will be our doctors and engineers.
You can't prove the non-existance of something including god. Believing their is no god is still a belief.
Unreasonable? Yes. Impossible? No
You aren't atheist, you are agnostic the same as me.
Agnostic:
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
I agree in principle with what you suggest should happen in that perfect world, but you will have noticed the many inconsistancies in principled practice with every human institution. Science by vitrtue of it's power and potential to dictate and enforce human developement ensured it's capture and control by the very same interests who have gutted the hopes and dreams of free people everywhere.
We can thank scientists for the most hedious weapons of murder, count them, calculate the deficit of ethics that allow the psycopathic pursuit of insturments such as weaponized influenza or any of the other million and one ingenious but inhumane, cruel and destructive evils spewed out of the military industrial complex at the behest of the corporate security complex.
Fallen scientists, the earth has a glut of them it would seem, there is never a problem finding many willing to advance murder.
As much as a certain school of science insists it's comprehension of reality to be qualitatively superior to the other schools of human thought there is little empiricle evidence to support that blind conciet.
Ethicly and morally the scientific community is bankrupt, thier silence is deafening. We can blame much of the worlds ills on the willing scientific community and we can prove it in court, as a body scientist do not deserve the adulation heaped upon them, they have abrogated the trust of the species and fed us enmass to the hucksters and hawkers of twenty-first century snakeoil, in every imaginable way. As a group they have served in the enslavement of mankind and the retardation of the species, never mind the obvious but flawed special interest advancements, they are as a whole far less worthy than you contend. My opinions are as old as science itself, the control I mentioned was instituted very early as you might expect with a priceless tool, first by the religious and then by the money, a bigger lot of harlots we would be hard pressed to find, surely in the same class as the legal profession. Science has no official independent voice and maybe it shouldn't have in light of its criminal record.
In the one hand,"nothing needs to be taken on faith" you say, in the other the empiricle evidence of your faith in science as practised. You have no faith in science it seems. I believe you contradict yourself a tiny little bit perhaps.
Every bit of that rant of mine is supported by evidence.
Last edited:
Apparently not, as I didn't say we don't have poor families. I said I live in one of the richest per capita communities and i don't know anybody on EI. If you are not sure of my point, please ask. I would be happy to explain it.
You didn't get two different answers you just took them out of the context of the thread. But that is entirely irrelevant. You have your answer, whether you can accept it or not.
He asked how poor fits into the equation, and your answer was 'it doesn't'. Sorry, but, that's pretty clear. I felt no need to ask what you meant. If you feel a need to clarify, go ahead.
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.
I would argue largely that religion is a HUGE part of the curriculum when it comes to people teaching evolutionary theory. Or rather, an attempt to discredit religion, has always been drug into it by those who teach it.
Perhaps if people were more willing to simply state the theory, and leave the individual to decide what it means in terms of their spiritual journey or religion, it wouldn't be such a problem. But that seems to be next to impossible when you throw individuals into the mix.
It did fit into the question I was asking wolf whether you think so or not.
Not everyone can afford to choose private schools or homeschooling, plain and simple.
You were doing then what you were doing now. You brought up poverty. To refresh your memory, LW said...
...to which you responded with...
You seem to be reading more into what people are saying.
I agree, I'm just not sure of the relevance.
Read again what wolf said that sparked my question...
It's an ECONOMIC reality in RURAL districts...
I questioned him on it. It was a question, because he paired 'economic reality', and 'rural'. Which made me ask a question. If it made me ask a question, how is it an invalid question?
If you think I have no right to question anyone on the intent of their posts, you've got another thing coming.
I asked, he answered, we discussed it, and came to a conclusion. That you would have the nerve to imply that it was in invalid question, is absurd.
hehehe The Earth isn't flat. if you can look out the window from 35,000 feet up and see the horizon over the ocean, you'd realize it couldn't be flat. If it WAS the center of the universe we wouldn't be circling the Sun.
Flat would mean nothing. Center would mean nothing. You want to chuck out half the English language to accommodate all the dimensions that MIGHT be? Sorry, EA1, that just seems so very funny to me.
Yes it is. That doesn't necessarily mean rural people are poor. It has more to do with dwindling student population, aging schools and lack of outside facilities. Burdett, the school I linked, does not have a track, soccer field or ball diamond.