Illegal to fail students if they believe in certain myths as opposed to facts?

[Polydectes]

What makes you think evolution is disproven any easier than 1+1=3 given the evidence for evolution?

I said that, below

Now lets try with creation v evolution. Pick up one shoe, now pick up another one, how on earth does this relate to creation v evolution?

Remember?

Because most people agree with it? Well popular vote is hardly a good measure for the truth given history. So what is it? Because you say so? You are hardly omniscient.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, I say that I don't know. You are the omniscient one, knowing absolutely for a fact that evolution is absolutely fact.

Do you not realize that there has to be methodology? That is my whole point here. You use degrading remarks about nursery school, but you fail to see how deep this issue actually runs and instead opt for the simpleton fix as you often seem to do.

What do you mean often ?

My fix is coexist, its very simple you don't grasp it again the nursery school comment.

You said I was a500 year through back now you call me a simpleton. You have to coexist, would you have creationists locked up. They are going to believe what they want. A pathetic teacher flunking a child over the question being answered should be a hate crime that is insult to injury.

The nursery school comment I do apologize for, although your insults go without apology.

If creation was as simple as 1+1=2 there would be no debate. People who don't understand that simple mathematical sentence are mentally incapacitated. Creationists aren't. It seems like you want them labeled that way so they can be locked up.

I don't know why its such a tall order that you simply coexist.

Well guess what? Relative methodologies at determining the truth isn't that simple. And neither is the world. So yes, tell me, why given the evidence is there any difference between my religion saying 1+1=3 and yours saying creationism is true?

What religion? I an not religious. What put that in your head?

 

[Polydectes]

So you admit evolution has more of a factual basis? If so, good. Then that is reason enough to teach it over creationism (or whatever you want to call your beliefs/arguments as- I don't care for the label) in schools. The latter is myth considering you have 0 proof. Get some and then maybe we'll talk about comparing the two

Finally, you understand, mercy.

I never said creation should be taught in school. I frankly don't believe in creationism, I said that repeatedly.

All I said, in fact all this law says is that kids should not be flunked for refusing to reject their beliefs

I never spoke about my personal beliefs, I don't really have many. It isn't a belief to say I don't know something.

Again nobody ever suggested teaching religion in school. I don't get the jump you make from, Kids being able to graduate of they believe in God is the same thing as saying that all students must accept God. The gap between the two is called the universe.

 

[Polydectes]

So you admit evolution has more of a factual basis? If so, good.

I never said to the contrary, nor does this law, don't know why this is in your head.

Than that is reason enough to teach it over creationism

I have to repeat myself a lot with you. I never suggested teaching creationism, that isn't what this law is about.

Don't know why you dreamed that up.

(or whatever you want to call your beliefs/arguments as- I don't care for the label)

Never mentioned my beliefs.

iThe latter is myth considering you have 0 proof. Get some and then maybe we'll talk about comparing the two

way off subject. Nothing in the op about teaching mythology.

 

[David]

Um, why are you replying to the same post over and over? You are allowed to make more then 1 point in a post...

 

[myp]

If creation was as simple as 1+1=2 there would be no debate. People who don't understand that simple mathematical sentence are mentally incapacitated. Creationists aren't. It seems like you want them labeled that way so they can be locked up.

What is your basis for establishing the fact that 1+1=2? You have not disclosed your methodology in determining such fact and differentiating it from fiction. All you have said is something about having one shoe and adding another shoe. Well if that is enough proof for you, then surely carbon dating on the age of the oldest human skeletons vs. dinosaur fossils, microbial evolution before our eyes, the relationship in genomic sequences in species across the world, the effect of mutations in the human genome and the drug therapies that are now starting to target that and show efficacy in clinical trials, etc. must be enough proof for evolution, no? It takes 2 shoes to convince you of 1+1=2, yet you have this whole body of PROOF of evolution and you reject it. And why? Because some book written by a human a few thousand years ago (well rewritten to be politically correct not so long ago) says so? Hardly a good source for the truth.

You say people who can't tell 1+1=2 are stupid or whatever. Why? What if their religious text says it equals 3? That is the whole issue here. Clearly their religious text is wrong just as yours is when it suggests dinosaurs and men might have lived together or that some mythical being "intelligentally" designed everything (and if it was so intelligent why the hell is there a fun zone in the middle of a sewage system in humans? what engineer would ever do that?)

 

[myp]

All I said, in fact all this law says is that kids should not be flunked for refusing to reject their beliefs

Some beliefs are myths. Schools should not say it is okay to reject fact for myth if your religion says so. Again, my religion might say 1+1=3, but I don't want schools to reject that either. Anyway you put it, you are making a hypocritical argument in saying 1+1=3 is not acceptable, yet saying dinosaurs and men existed at the same time is. Leave the religious indoctrination for the home, not the school. There is a separation of church and state for a reason and beyond that you are taking an axe to the foundation of human knowledge with such silly suggestions.

And before you go ranting on about how 1+1=2 just because you said so and evolution doesn't exist also because you said so, replace 1+1=3 with some other fact like f=ma is you should so please. 1+1 is just an example.

 

[saturn8893]

Some beliefs are myths. Schools should not say it is okay to reject fact for myth if your religion says so. Again, my religion might say 1+1=3, but I don't want schools to reject that either. Anyway you put it, you are making a hypocritical argument in saying 1+1=3 is not acceptable, yet saying dinosaurs and men existed at the same time is. Leave the religious indoctrination for the home, not the school. There is a separation of church and state for a reason and beyond that you are taking an axe to the foundation of human knowledge with such silly suggestions.

And before you go ranting on about how 1+1=2 just because you said so and evolution doesn't exist also because you said so, replace 1+1=3 with some other fact like f=ma is you should so please. 1+1 is just an example.

While I agree that religion is not a valid excuse to reject facts, at this point in scientific discovery, do we actually have enough proof to suggest dinosaurs and humans co-existed? I don't think the analogy between the physics commonplace F=MA and evolution is a valid one because of this uncertainty with regards to evolution. F=MA has been a widely accepted and proven physics formula for decades, while the notion of evolution is relatively new.

 

[myp]

While I agree that religion is not a valid excuse to reject facts, at this point in scientific discovery, do we actually have enough proof to suggest dinosaurs and humans co-existed?

Did you mean to suggest they did not coexist? If so, then certainly. The fossil record and where certain fossils are found in the sediment is great evidence. There are no human or human-like fossils in the sediment layers where we find dinosaurs fossils. Carbon dating further confirms this. And to go beyond that, the general trend in speciation, living conditions, etc. all point to that not being a possibility. The facts are already there- there are other things far less certain that we (including the creationists) accept as fact.

I don't think the analogy between the physics commonplace F=MA and evolution is a valid one because of this uncertainty with regards to evolution. F=MA has been a widely accepted and proven physics formula for decades, while the notion of evolution is relatively new.

The notion of evolution is not new and it is not uncertain. The creationist argument was settled over a century ago in expert circles. Virtually all biologists have long agreed that evolution is fact and there is countless data to support the theory. Some in the religious crowd just does not want to give up their disproven beliefs and instead insists on holding back progress in favor of a simpler, non-fact based alternative as they have done so many times throughout history.

 

[saturn8893]

myp,

Sorry, I did mean to suggest not co-exist.

Also, I agree with you that the theory of evolution is not necessarily a new one. I failed to recall Charles Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, which was written in 1859, that suggests evolution.

In any case, all the evidence you suggest for humans not co-existing with dinosaurs does not prove anything, don't you agree? It all supports the theory of human evolution, but does not prove it without a reasonable doubt. F=MA, on the other hand, can be entirely proven through mathematical derivation methods. Until scientists can develop a similar exact method to prove that human evolution occurred, shouldn't people have the right to believe what they like?

 

[myp]

In any case, all the evidence you suggest for humans not co-existing with dinosaurs does not prove anything, don't you agree? It all supports the theory of human evolution, but does not prove it without a reasonable doubt. F=MA, on the other hand, can be entirely proven through mathematical derivation methods. Until scientists can develop a similar exact method to prove that human evolution occurred, shouldn't people have the right to believe what they like?

It is proven though. You can witness it firsthand in a petri dish. You can look at the fossil record, carbon dating, speciation patterns, etc. Just like germ theory is proven, so is evolution.

This conversation eventually ends up in the realm of philosophy where one asks what can you really know or what can you really prove. Ultimate proof is relative. Given how we define proof in science or as humans in general, evolution has more than enough evidence to call it a fact even when compared to other things that no one is arguing is fact. Newtonian physics was for a long time accepted as pure fact and had all the derivations, etc., yet in the end it turned out that it was only a good approximation for Earth and that the real equations (so far as we can tell but certainly way past the margin of fact and belief) are what Einstein actually found in relativity. There is always that off chance that evolution could be wrong, but in determining fact vs. belief it is easily fact because again of how we determine fact- this is where the methodology really matters. If you use every tail-end, miniscule probability as a reason to call something belief, then you will define everything as belief, perhaps short of Descartes' conclusion- but then that doesn't mean anything in the context of fact vs. opinion and the utility of such distinction is lost. We have a methodology to determine fact from fiction for a reason- because it helps us learn more about the world and further ourselves.

 

[Polydectes]

What is your basis for establishing the fact that 1+1=2? You have not disclosed your methodology in determining such fact and differentiating it from fiction. All you have said is something about having one shoe and adding another shoe. Well if that is enough proof for you, then surely carbon dating on the age of the oldest human skeletons vs. dinosaur fossils, microbial evolution before our eyes, the relationship in genomic sequences in species across the world, the effect of mutations in the human genome and the drug therapies that are now starting to target that and show efficacy in clinical trials, etc. must be enough proof for evolution, no? It takes 2 shoes to convince you of 1+1=2, yet you have this whole body of PROOF of evolution and you reject it. And why? Because some book written by a human a few thousand years ago (well rewritten to be politically correct not so long ago) says so? Hardly a good source for the truth.

All of the above argument isn't addressing my argument. Again you are off topic. I don't care that evolution is more viable. You are terrible at debate. My word.

Nobody is suggesting that creation is more viable than evolution, we are not even talking about that.

You are ranting and raving about how stupid religion is, that doesn't matter. Thus is about stopping a hate crime against children.

You say people who can't tell 1+1=2 are stupid or whatever. Why? What if their religious text says it equals 3? That is the whole issue here. Clearly their religious text is wrong just as yours is when it suggests dinosaurs and men might have lived together or that some mythical being "intelligentally" designed everything (and if it was so intelligent why the hell is there a fun zone in the middle of a sewage system in humans? what engineer would ever do that?)

Its clear you hate christianity, frankly that's fine, hate them, I don't care. This isn't an argument about how superior your beliefs are, this is about not allowing our nation to become a secular supremacy.

I never said anyone was stupid, you have a few very bad habits. I said mentally incapacitated.

And again what religion is against arithmetic?

 

[Polydectes]

Some beliefs are myths. Schools should not say it is okay to reject fact for myth if your religion says so. .......removal of nonsense.....

Your superiority is showing.

You and no government has the right to discriminate against a religion.

And until you tell me what religion says 1+1=3 that well be removed on my rebuttal.

Lets really focus on the religion you are trying to stamp out verses imaginary ones.

 

[Polydectes]

It is proven though. You can witness it firsthand in a petri dish. You can look at the fossil record, carbon dating, speciation patterns, etc. Just like germ theory is proven, so is evolution.

This conversation eventually ends up in the realm of philosophy where one asks what can you really know or what can you really prove. Ultimate proof is relative. Given how we define proof in science or as humans in general, evolution has more than enough evidence to call it a fact even when compared to other things that no one is arguing is fact. Newtonian physics was for a long time accepted as pure fact and had all the derivations, etc., yet in the end it turned out that it was only a good approximation for Earth and that the real equations (so far as we can tell but certainly way past the margin of fact and belief) are what Einstein actually found in relativity. There is always that off chance that evolution could be wrong, but in determining fact vs. belief it is easily fact because again of how we determine fact- this is where the methodology really matters. If you use every tail-end, miniscule probability as a reason to call something belief, then you will define everything as belief, perhaps short of Descartes' conclusion- but then that doesn't mean anything in the context of fact vs. opinion and the utility of such distinction is lost. We have a methodology to determine fact from fiction for a reason- because it helps us learn more about the world and further ourselves.

Enough about how great evolution is.

Why don't you quit dodging the point of this law and explain how its okay to demand a child deny his God.

The first amendment is there to protect the American people from this kind of injustice.

 

[Polydectes]

Why would you fail a student because he got a question or two wrong on a test, that seems very vindictive.

Only motive I see is so that you can keep believers out of academics. This is no different than keeping vegetarian people out of academia.

 

[myp]

You having to resort to slander and misrepresentation when you can't make logical rebuttals means it is the end of debate on my part. Good luck fighting battles that no one is picking with you.

 

[Iolo]

Why would you fail a student because he got a question or two wrong on a test, that seems very vindictive.

Only motive I see is so that you can keep believers out of academics. This is no different than keeping vegetarian people out of academia.

That you can't see the difference shows why you'd never make an academic. You believe truth is handed you and you need make no effort, so you'd be useless in any search for truth, wouldn't you? Like any aristocrat you expect your lot to have priviledges and ride over us ordinary people. What's the point of talking to such arrogance?

 

[Stonewall]

Why not give our students all we know explaining what we don't know as well and allow them to determine for themselves....

Why not advance free thinking?

 

[myp]

Why not give our students all we know explaining what we don't know as well and allow them to determine for themselves....

Why not advance free thinking?

Well of course we should do that. You always leave room for anything being wrong- that is probably a greater emphasis in science than outside it as changing one's opinion, etc. is often encouraged when new data or facts surface. But facts are facts and myths are myths- just like 1+1=3 could be a tail-end very small probability, but you teach 1+1=2 as fact, we should do the same with evolution given the tremendous evidence and proof that supports it.

 

[saturn8893]

It is proven though. You can witness it firsthand in a petri dish. You can look at the fossil record, carbon dating, speciation patterns, etc. Just like germ theory is proven, so is evolution.

This conversation eventually ends up in the realm of philosophy where one asks what can you really know or what can you really prove. Ultimate proof is relative. Given how we define proof in science or as humans in general, evolution has more than enough evidence to call it a fact even when compared to other things that no one is arguing is fact. Newtonian physics was for a long time accepted as pure fact and had all the derivations, etc., yet in the end it turned out that it was only a good approximation for Earth and that the real equations (so far as we can tell but certainly way past the margin of fact and belief) are what Einstein actually found in relativity. There is always that off chance that evolution could be wrong, but in determining fact vs. belief it is easily fact because again of how we determine fact- this is where the methodology really matters. If you use every tail-end, miniscule probability as a reason to call something belief, then you will define everything as belief, perhaps short of Descartes' conclusion- but then that doesn't mean anything in the context of fact vs. opinion and the utility of such distinction is lost. We have a methodology to determine fact from fiction for a reason- because it helps us learn more about the world and further ourselves.

I'm not sure one can prove the evolution of humans by observing a petri dish. Perhaps some genetic mutations and variations may arise, which will ultimately lead to evolution after several generations, but these changes cannot prove human evolution, I don't think. That's beside the point, however.

You provide good points. It truly is difficult to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. In any case, since evolution is such a controversial issue today, perhaps schools should provide for students evidence for and against the theory, as Stonewall suggested. The students then can formulate their own opinions.

 

[myp]

I'm not sure one can prove the evolution of humans by observing a petri dish. Perhaps some genetic mutations and variations may arise, which will ultimately lead to evolution after several generations, but these changes cannot prove human evolution, I don't think. That's beside the point, however.

You provide good points. It truly is difficult to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. In any case, since evolution is such a controversial issue today, perhaps schools should provide for students evidence for and against the theory, as Stonewall suggested. The students then can formulate their own opinions.

Human evolution can be seen in the fossil record, genome comparisons, etc. Again, the hard evidence and proof is already there- to deny it then raises the question of why you aren't denying other less established things which are also considered and taught as fact. Controversy does not matter here- there are people who reject virtually anything you can think of- stopping or sharing both "sides" of anything ever disputed means we would get nothing done or taught in schools. Furthermore, the major conflict here comes not from another scientific or fact-based theory, but from a religion (which by the way offers its "alternative" with 0 fact or evidence and only a religious text)- that raises a whole other can of issues- for one, we can't teach religion in schools as per the separation of Church and State and as the Supreme Court ruled on creationism in 1987.