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

[Polydectes]

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?

Wow, now I am an aristocrat, ha ha ha, funny when you call me a crank.

ordinary people? I wouldn't call you ordinary.

You don't know how to debate without ad hominem. Do you have a position or is it just calling people cranks, nutters and aristocrats?

Exactly why you can never be an academic you take disagreement personally. You have emotional attachment to your position.

 

[Polydectes]

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.

Remember the title of your post.

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

Why should it be legal.

You have been off topic the last ten pages.
Failing to explain why it should be legal.

 

[myp]

Remember the title of your post.


Why should it be legal.

You have been off topic the last ten pages.
Failing to explain why it should be legal.

Your inability to follow the deepness of the issue especially considering precedent does not make my posts off-topic. But more importantly, your slander is not worth my time.

 

[Polydectes]

Your inability to follow the deepness of the issue especially considering precedent does not make my posts off-topic. But more importantly, your slander is not worth my time.

Slander? what slander? I never slandered you. Please sight the points which I did and I will absolutely apologize.

I asked the simplest question, why should it be legal?

Your answer was an accusation and a dodge, implying that I am incapable of understanding science, and the "deepness of this issue" as you put it. And that I belong 500 years in the past.

This is not a deep issue, its simple. And your pathetic dodging makes your motive clear. Pretending that nobody can understand the issue like you can.

I would prefer you not continue this debate, please I know you are emotionally invested deeply into your religion and those that cast doubt upon it are an assault to you.

Your insult tells me more about you than it insults me. What you say isn't as important as what you don't say. You may be an expert at evolution, but I am an expert at reading people.

 

[David]

Slander? what slander? I never slandered you. Please sight the points which I did and I will absolutely apologize.

I asked the simplest question, why should it be legal?

Your answer was an accusation and a dodge, implying that I am incapable of understanding science, and the "deepness of this issue" as you put it. And that I belong 500 years in the past.

This is not a deep issue, its simple. And your pathetic dodging makes your motive clear. Pretending that nobody can understand the issue like you can.

I would prefer you not continue this debate, please I know you are emotionally invested deeply into your religion and those that cast doubt upon it are an assault to you.

Your insult tells me more about you than it insults me. What you say isn't as important as what you don't say. You may be an expert at evolution, but I am an expert at reading people.

Explaining the issue rather then relying on something that can fit on a bumper sticker is the opposite of dodging...

 

[Polydectes]

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?

People absolutely have the right to believe what they wish, some that desperately want their beliefs to be unquestioned will do their best to stamp out any opposition, its a tactic as old as time.

 

[Polydectes]

Explaining the issue rather then relying on something that can fit on a bumper sticker is the opposite of dodging...

Going on and on about how dumb creation is doesn't answer the question, of why a person should be failed for not surrendering their God.

Myp ranted about how wrong it is to teach creation, nobody suggested that we should, then he ranted about how backward people who believe in it were. Then he accused me of being a creationist.

Never once did he address why a child should be denied a diploma for not accepting evolution.

I don't expect it to fit on a bumper sticker, I expect honesty.

When I finally held his feet to the flame he cowarded behind some imaginary insults and fictitious slander. And presided to slander me.

This is a rather benign tactic, showing me he hasn't got an answer or I was right in my assessment.

If that isn't a dodge, I don't know what is.

 

[David]

Going on and on about how dumb creation is doesn't answer the question, of why a person should be failed for not surrendering their God.

Myp ranted about how wrong it is to teach creation, nobody suggested that we should, then he ranted about how backward people who believe in it were. Then he accused me of being a creationist.

Never once did he address why a child should be denied a diploma for not accepting evolution.

I don't expect it to fit on a bumper sticker, I expect honesty.

When I finally held his feet to the flame he cowarded behind some imaginary insults and fictitious slander. And presided to slander me.

This is a rather benign tactic, showing me he hasn't got an answer or I was right in my assessment.

If that isn't a dodge, I don't know what is.

Creationism is the point of this law, they don't come out and say it because it's academically and legally unacceptable but it's still the reason. myp is on topic, you just seem bent of denying the obvious and pretending this law has academic freedom at heart.

 

[Polydectes]

Creationism is the point of this law, they don't come out and say it because it's academically and legally unacceptable but it's still the reason. myp is on topic, you just seem bent of denying the obvious and pretending this law has academic freedom at heart.

How is that true, if it was then the law would read differently.

I never pretended this was academic freedom, there is nothing academic about creationism, so why would I be arguing that it was academic freedom.

I can't imagine a student failing for rejecting evolution, I assume we are discussing public school. Never did I see accepting evolution as being 51% of a grade. So failing a student for not accepting it sounds like a vindictive move.

The law says that it cannot cause you to fail, not that you should still get a perfect grade.


I just don't understand why it is so important that you force religious kids to pay lip service to evolution. That is what we are talking about. The law doesn't say that creation be on the level playing field as evolution.

 

[Stonewall]

People absolutely have the right to believe what they wish, some that desperately want their beliefs to be unquestioned will do their best to stamp out any opposition, its a tactic as old as time.

This is correct. And I cannot understand 'opposition stomping' as both theories, based either on creationism or evolution, require leaps of faith. Both can be accepted, one denied for the other.....point is.....I cannot understand why so many are so quick to dismiss either theory or thought process on the matter. How, why, when, where, what we're doing here is a question as old as mankind itself and thus......why would we dismiss anyone else's theories?

 

[Iolo]

I say that peoples religious beliefs matter, because they matter to them, and to peace and tolerance.

People can believe in what ever they want, I am nobody to say their beliefs are wrong, I expect the same courtesy, I typically receive it.

Some people only exist to please their God, facts are of little concern to them, so what matters is relative.

But nutters are not, almost anywhere nowadays, allowed to impose their crazy notions on public education. You are asking a total exemption from questioning forever: what have you ever done to deserve it?

 

[Stonewall]

But nutters are not, almost anywhere nowadays, allowed to impose their crazy notions on public education. You are asking a total exemption from questioning forever: what have you ever done to deserve it?

Like "rights" for people who behave sexually in some manner? C'mon Iolo. I mean there was a time our nation considered racial segregation the norm, today it would be considered immoral, illegal, and a crazy notion.

 

[David]

This is correct. And I cannot understand 'opposition stomping' as both theories, based either on creationism or evolution, require leaps of faith. Both can be accepted, one denied for the other.....point is.....I cannot understand why so many are so quick to dismiss either theory or thought process on the matter. How, why, when, where, what we're doing here is a question as old as mankind itself and thus......why would we dismiss anyone else's theories?

Evolution doesn't require a leap of faith, you can see it happen.

 

[Polydectes]

But nutters are not, almost anywhere nowadays, allowed to impose their crazy notions on public education. you are asking a total exemption from questioning forever: what have you ever done to deserve it?

Crazy, not deserving, crank, nutter. You insult everything you disagree with, that means you don't really have a case or a point to make.

Of course you don't the boldened lie in you response proves it.

I have completely lost any respect for you. You have totally failed at proving anything, and you have Plato failed miserably at being decent.

I really hasn't little else to say to you.

 

[Polydectes]

Like "rights" for people who behave sexually in some manner? C'mon Iolo. I mean there was a time our nation considered racial segregation the norm, today it would be considered immoral, illegal, and a crazy notion.

I wouldn't waste my time with lolo.

There is am old saying, "if you meet one person that is a crank, then that person was a crank. if everybody you meet is a crank, perhaps it is you who is the crank."

He calls everybody a crank.

 

[Polydectes]

Evolution doesn't require a leap of faith, you can see it happen.

Doesn't it take millions of years?

 

[Stonewall]

Evolution doesn't require a leap of faith, you can see it happen.

Pretend I'm from Missouri

 

[Stonewall]

Doesn't it take millions of years?

For a primate to evolve to a modern human, you would figure there would be numerous and thus proof of such an evolution.

 

[tecoyah]

"
The genome of a recently discovered branch of extinct humans known as the Denisovans that once interbred with us has been sequenced, scientists said today (Aug. 30).
Genetic analysis of the fossil revealed it apparently belonged to a little girl with dark skin, brown hair and brown eyes, researchers said. All in all, the scientists discovered about 100,000 recent changes in our genome that occurred after the split from the Denisovans. A number of these changes influence genes linked with brain function and nervous system development, leading to speculation that we may think differently from the Denisovans. Other changes are linked with the skin, eyes and teeth."
Genome of Mysterious Extinct Human Reveals Brown-Eyed Girl | LiveScience




You would think.

 

[saturn8893]

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.

I agree. At some point, people could start argue that widely known facts are false due to religious beliefs, and if we continue with this system of "anything goes," no progress will be made in schools.

Yet I don't quite see the problem with this bill. It states students will be tested on classroom material, which could certainly include evidence for the theory of evolution; they will simply not be forced to believe the theory itself. Thus, why does it matter what they take away from the evidence they are provided? They should have the opportunity to develop their own judgements. As I stated, while there might be an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the theory of evolution, particularly of humans, there is still the possibility that it's false.
I guess my point is, as long as students understand the evidence that supports the credibility of the theory, why does it matter what they believe overall?