NationStates

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:31 am**

Atlatonha wrote:I'd just like to point out that the discussion about the scientific meaning of 'theory' is really kind of irrelevant as the -theory- of evolution is NOT the same thing as the phenomenon of evolution.

Evolution as a thing that happens is -completely separate- from the compiled information, observations, and extrapolations that are called the 'theory of evolution'. It's more like the difference between a computer and a computer manual: one explains how the other works, they are not the same thing.

So no matter WHAT 'theory' means, evolution is NOT called 'the theory of evolution'. It is NOT called a theory, and your argument based on that is not only dumb, it is wrong.

If you can't even read the manual what hope do you have for using the computer?

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:39 am**

Tatooene wrote:
Blasveck wrote:
1. Learn the definition of scientific theory, please.
2. Evolution is a fact. It happens. You can't stop it from happening.
3. I don't care what the minority believes. The minority is wrong.

1. I'm not sure what your problem is. I never called creationism a theory, I called evolution a theory.
2. So-called micro-evolution happens, yes. That is not proof of macro-evolution, or a biogenesis, or whatever it is evolutionists believe in.
3. I don't really care who you believe is wrong. There are still millions of people who believe in creationism and it deserves a brief glance-over at the least.

To paraphrase my textbooks
"When Catholic, Jean Baptiste Lamarck proposed his ideas of inherited characteristics, people didn't like the idea of being descended from worm-like creatures, back then, they believed that god had created humans as they were"
"People made fun at Darwin's theory at first, the main belief at the time was that god had created man and the Earth in seven days."
That is a good enough mention.

Posted: **Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:43 am**

Blakk Metal wrote:To be fair, "how life arises continues to be a scientific mystery and there are competing ideas about it" is a correct statement.

But they are not teaching a hypothesis of belief on how life arose, they are teaching the theory of evolution, which accurately explains how less complex organism developed into organisms we see today.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:20 am**

As an atheist, my opinion toward this is, why are they thinking about parents religious freedom?
What that means is they want to not give their child a choice in what they believe, it's enforcing religion upon them and not giving them an alternative.

They are blocking children's rights, and their education Should be more important Than the parents obsession to block them out from their own opinion.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:31 am**

Teaching science has nothing to do with religious freedom so christians can stop saying that it violates there freedoms

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:24 am**

DesAnges wrote:
Atlatonha wrote:I'd just like to point out that the discussion about the scientific meaning of 'theory' is really kind of irrelevant as the -theory- of evolution is NOT the same thing as the phenomenon of evolution.

Evolution as a thing that happens is -completely separate- from the compiled information, observations, and extrapolations that are called the 'theory of evolution'. It's more like the difference between a computer and a computer manual: one explains how the other works, they are not the same thing.

So no matter WHAT 'theory' means, evolution is NOT called 'the theory of evolution'. It is NOT called a theory, and your argument based on that is not only dumb, it is wrong.

If you can't even read the manual what hope do you have for using the computer?

Oh yes, the manual is important, as the theory explaining a phenomenon is important. But they're not the same THING. If your computer manual were totally wrong, it would not mean your computer does not exist.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:41 am**

*Sighs* Why? I may need to hit you with the cross of justice.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:43 pm**

Tatooene wrote:As a Christian, I don't mind that evolution is taught in schools, especially since it is such a prevalent belief in the US. 1. My only point is that it is still a theory, and should be treated as a theory, not a fact. 2. And there should be at least a brief, non-condescending discussion of creationism, since a fairly large minority still believe in it. 3. Even if they don't believe in creationism, it would still be beneficial to students to learn what a good number of others believe.

1. Indeed, evolution is a theory and shouldn't be taught as fact. Likewise, gravity is a theory and should shouldn't be taught as fact. /sarcasm, but seriously learn2science
2. And if a minority of people loudly proclaimed that 2+2=3766 would you suggest teaching that in a non-condescending manner as part of a mathematics course?
3. And they can, right after learning about the Zues-lighting hypothesis in a religous studies course when the topic of debunked beliefs comes up.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:47 pm**

Tatooene wrote:
Blasveck wrote:
1. Learn the definition of scientific theory, please.
2. Evolution is a fact. It happens. You can't stop it from happening.
3. I don't care what the minority believes. The minority is wrong.

1. I'm not sure what your problem is. I never called creationism a theory, I called evolution a theory.
2. So-called micro-evolution happens, yes. That is not proof of macro-evolution, or a biogenesis, or whatever it is evolutionists believe in.
3. I don't really care who you believe is wrong. There are still millions of people who believe in creationism and it deserves a brief glance-over at the least.

1. The problem is that by your logic gravity shouldn't be taught as fact.
2. Umm, there is substational proof from both evolution and biogenesis, but the point I really want to make is: There is no ***ing distinction between micro and macro evolution.
3. Argumentum ad populum.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:03 pm**

Bavaria-Saxony wrote:As an atheist, my opinion toward this is, why are they thinking about parents religious freedom?
What that means is they want to not give their child a choice in what they believe, it's enforcing religion upon them and not giving them an alternative.

They are blocking children's rights, and their education Should be more important Than the parents obsession to block them out from their own opinion.

Can we honestly say that a nation that denies children political authority over themselves, sovereignty over themselves, and basic human acknowledgment recognizes the rights of children? Do they have rights in the US?

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:07 pm**

Aurelio wrote:
Pacifornia wrote:California Dept. of Education is seriously effed up, but at least I go to sleep soundly knowing they wouldn't accept this kind of fruitloopery. I have to wonder what the hell these people in Kansas are smoking!

They are smoking Jesus. Obviously.

So you could say it's...

*puts on sunglasses*

Holy Smoke.

HALLELUJAAAAH

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:16 pm**

Ayreonia wrote:
Aurelio wrote:They are smoking Jesus. Obviously.

So you could say it's...

*puts on sunglasses*

Holy Smoke.

HALLELUJAAAAH

One does not simply get high off a sun deity.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:24 pm**

Benuty wrote:
Ayreonia wrote:So you could say it's...

*puts on sunglasses*

Holy Smoke.

HALLELUJAAAAH

One does not simply get high off a sun deity.

Yes, one does.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:27 pm**

There comes a time in every girl's life when a challenge is so monumentally difficult that she simply must give up. For this girl, it is understanding how the minda of the stupid work. It is simply beyond comprehension. When I read this OP, all I could do was laugh. I was mentally paralyzed be the sheer idiocy on display. Goddammit, Kansas.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:30 pm**

Kansas can't into science

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:35 pm**

4years wrote:
Tatooene wrote:1. I'm not sure what your problem is. I never called creationism a theory, I called evolution a theory.
2. So-called micro-evolution happens, yes. That is not proof of macro-evolution, or a biogenesis, or whatever it is evolutionists believe in.
3. I don't really care who you believe is wrong. There are still millions of people who believe in creationism and it deserves a brief glance-over at the least.

1. The problem is that by your logic gravity shouldn't be taught as fact.
2. Umm, there is substational proof from both evolution and biogenesis, but the point I really want to make is: There is no ***ing distinction between micro and macro evolution.
3. Argumentum ad populum.

If I may?

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the definition of a Scientific Theory. A Scientific Theory cannot, and will not, ever, become a Scientific Law. The two are very different things and should not be treated as similar.

A Scientific Law explains what happens. For example. If I let go of this pen, it will fall.
A Scientific Theory explains why it happens. For example. The pen will drop because of the force of Gravity.

To dumb it down even further, laws are generally If - Then statements
Theories are Laws with an explanation tacked on. Generally speaking.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:35 pm**

Yuktova wrote:Kansas can't into science

It's almost like they don't even try.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:37 pm**

Ayreonia wrote:
Benuty wrote:One does not simply get high off a sun deity.

Yes, one does.

An irrelevant Aegyptian pseudo-deity not worshiped by billions of people across the world.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:38 pm**

Ayreonia wrote:
Yuktova wrote:Kansas can't into science

It's almost like they don't even try.

They probably don't as far as I know

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:38 pm**

Yuktova wrote:
Ayreonia wrote:It's almost like they don't even try.

They probably don't as far as I know

They used to until 1954.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:38 pm**

Benuty wrote:
Ayreonia wrote:Yes, one does.

An irrelevant Aegyptian pseudo-deity not worshiped by billions of people across the world.

How is that relevant? Figuratively speaking, Akhenaten got high off a sun deity.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:40 pm**

Ayreonia wrote:
Benuty wrote:An irrelevant Aegyptian pseudo-deity not worshiped by billions of people across the world.

How is that relevant? Figuratively speaking, Akhenaten got high off a sun deity.

Akhenaten experienced a false high while Jesus has experienced a continual high from his worship as a sun deity.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:41 pm**

Benuty wrote:
Ayreonia wrote:How is that relevant? Figuratively speaking, Akhenaten got high off a sun deity.

Akhenaten experienced a false high while Jesus has experienced a continual high from his worship as a sun deity.

I'm so confused

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:42 pm**

Len Hyet wrote:
Benuty wrote:Akhenaten experienced a false high while Jesus has experienced a continual high from his worship as a sun deity.

I'm so confused

Benuty means to say that Jesus is a sun deity and that one cannot get high off of the sun deity, Jesus.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:43 pm**

Benuty wrote:
Ayreonia wrote:How is that relevant? Figuratively speaking, Akhenaten got high off a sun deity.

Akhenaten experienced a false high while Jesus has experienced a continual high from his worship as a sun deity.

Jesus... sun deity?

wat

NationStates

Christian Group: Teaching science violates religious freedom