Of course. but saying “Evolution is NOT a better theory” implies same criteria, just trying to be sure of what you said there.
Fine, but once again, as you ignored later, that is not what the creationists are proposing in the OP.
Nothing, but once again, that is not what the creationists in the OP are proposing.
Same as the OP regarding creationists, and I also have a problem with people like you that bring solutions that the creationists are not considering in this case, and I am only finding how limited you are in your horizons. A doubter in special powers is not in reality your enemy, like magnets to superconductivity researchers, we are a natural challenge to confront so as to then get results that wil benefit humanity.
Well, I wouldn’t put creationism in a science class other than to give the kids a chance to rigorously test it. However, I would point out to them that what they are figuring out is whether or not it is verifiable. I’d explain to them the difference between what is verifiable, and what is true.
However, I do think creation has a legitimate place in school, even if not in a science class. I’d put it in a philosophy or theology class.
I have a lot of opinions about public education, and some ideas as to how to reform it, mostly I think that there should be a rigorous critical thinking regimen early on, and then later such as the HS level it should be glorified babysitting by people who are more or less research assistants there to help people through a path of study of their own choosing. There can still be “Science” classes and “History” classes with a curriculum, but the class itself would be people doing research on the same subject, and not necessarily guided research. A lot of money could be saved on education by eliminating textbooks completely, and giving cheap computer terminals with access to the internet.
I only talk about the way I would change education, because I think with a more free-form model where students can somewhat guide their own education, there would be less impetus from parents to FORCE the curriculum in one way or another.
If you taught them critical thinking skills early on, in High School you can say “This is what evolution means, here are people who believe in evolution, this is why they believe in evolution.” rather than telling them “evolution is true”. Because if the evidence is compelling enough, most of the students will accept it as true.
Ok, I think the people in Kansas trying to force the curriculum are dumbasses. We don’t need to argue about it, because I think we’re in agreement on that one.
And I don’t see you as my enemy for not believing in certain phenomena, but a lot of people just like to point and laugh, and pretend that their position is more rational when really they are just accepting the status quo. That’s who I have a problem with. I have lots of friends that are skeptical about things I believe to be true, that doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I’m really only bothered by hypocrisy. If someone is being a skeptic they won’t make bold assertions that things ARE NOT true, any more than they would make assertions that they ARE true in the face of a lack of verification.
While I know that I cannot prove to you that I have a third eye, I feel confident in the proof I have received. I also don’t think it is unscientific, I just don’t necessarily know how I would relate it to you, so it would be futile. We could have a conversation where I could TRY to explain, and that might help you out, but it’s not going to help if you keep trying to hold me to the standard you would hold a scientific claim to.
However, when my third eye opens it feels like a muscle opening in my forehead, kind of like a sphincter. It’s sort of disconcerting sometimes because it feels like a hole is opening up in my head. The third eye is considered one of the chakras, and I can feel every chakra in my body. I can feel different parts of my heart. I was doing experiments the other day where I was feeling the bottom of my heart as opposed to the rest of my heart. If I knew more about the brain, I might be able to give some insight in scientific terms but I don’t. And while I’ve forgotten what the different parts of the heart are, that doesn’t mean I can’t actually feel my heart in my chest. It’s along those same lines, and I would even go so far as to say that the heart is a sensory organ as well. Like I used the example of my penis, I would claim my penis is a sensory organ. All of these organs used in concert would lead one to the answer of such things as “Extra Sensory Perception”. I don’t believe that what is termed as “paranormal” is supernatural at all.
If you’re going to start making bold statements about the existence of mythical creatures now, I’m gonna need some cites verifying the existence of actual adults.
Dunno Baker, this time I think we have a consensus: the creationists in Kansas are boobs. over here we just complained on the hijack method. Hijack ended.
I want to know what he’s smoking, and where I can get some. I thought the SDMB was about fighting ignorance, not rolling around in it. A sphincter in the middle of his forehead, indeed.
[quote]
Your response in #157 that only religious/private institutions would give it a fair shake" I thought fairly obviously meant that they be given equal credence; equal time; be placed equally, side-by-side, as equally valid.
You made an assumption about what I meant that wasn’t accurate. By religious/private institutions, I was referring to Sunday School, Bible School and church. Kids don’t spend as much time there as they do in a science class, so that would not be “equal time.” There is also the option of private church school. Under those circumstances, in schools where Creation Science is taught as fact, I would think that the theory of evolution is not given equal time. That wouldn’t make sense.
What religious/private institutions were you thinking of that would give equal credence or side-by-side examination to both theories?
Calm yourself, ExTank. I have no militantly hostile attitude. Look to your own words and tell me if you are, by any chance, projecting. Meanwhile, I don’t think classroom science teachers are waiting for your final decision.
The “third eye” thing is a bit of a hijack, but it’s interesting.
You can’t explain red to a blind person. But a blind person can test for whether a person is sighted or not. E.g. a bunch of blind scientists can prepare a corridor with a number of objects at one end, constrain the “sighted” person at the other end and ask them to describe what they “see” without being able to touch the objects.
mswas, is your third eye testable? Could you use it to distinguish between an angry person and a calm person, or an asleep and awake person, with your normal eyes blindfolded? If half a room was screened off with black plastic sheet, could you tell if there are people on the other side of it?
Also, please note that if your answer to these questions is yes, you could be well on your way to winning $1,000,000. That last bit with the black plastic sheet would seem to be the easiest way to take the money. You wouldn’t even have to try to explain how it works (which is as well, since you say that it would be difficult). All you have to do to take the money is show that it works. What could be simpler?
Pain and suffering are, I would say, fairly objective.
Take another look at the two characters in my second link.
How old would you say they were? Eighty? Ninety? Wrong. They’re probably in their early teens. They are afflicted with a genetic condition, progeria, which causes them to age roughly eight times faster than a normal human being. They probably didn’t live to see their tenth birthdays. For much of their lives they were afflicted with the types of conditions we associate with octagenarians. Brittle bones, atherosclerosis, mental retardation to name but a few. They did nothing to deserve this. Their families committed no sins.
You, you stupid obstinate bastard, asked for evidence that the idea we were “designed” by an intelligent being is flawed. I reiterate, if we were infact created by an intelligent being, whence the pain and suffering which comes with terminal and untreatable genetic conditions?
See here is where your logic is flawed. You think that pain and suffering is objectively NEGATIVE. Pain and suffering is experiential. Whether or not it is good is completely subjective.
This is a common flaw in the anti-Creator argument, people think that their idea of goodness in any way applies to the Creator. God is beyond and sort of subjectivity, because God would by nature feel every possible permutation of any situation. God is feeling everything that is felt because of their deformity simultaneously, from the mother’s happiness at having a child, to her misery at having a deformed child. God feels your derision for those who are deformed. God feels how I feel about the issue, god feels how the quarterback of the bears feels receiving the snap.
Your argument is completely subjective. Pain is objective, suffering is subjective. Just because one is feeling pain does not mean that one is suffering. Some people LIKE pain.
