Conservative Kansas Group Claims Teaching Science is Unconstitutional

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="mahlasor"]

  Well global warming shouldnt be taught as fact when there is plenty of arguements against it.  Same as Evolution, it really is not an science, it is more of an hypothesis.  

mahlasor

  We already got a bible that you can read on your own, we got the internet, public schools are pointless.  

edit: so what I am sayying is...  Do we really need public schools teaching stuff that we can learn on our own?

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

I suggest finishing middle school before continuing on your embarrassing rant

lostrib

  That does not even make sense whatsoever, I am WAYYY past that age, idiot...  What an assumption to make, mr 29k poster.  I bet you made that post just to increase your post count.

what is your obession with people's post count

  Because I find a correlation between the rudeness of a poster to their post count.  My theory is they simply just make more post which results in the reduction of the post quality...

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

  That does not even make sense whatsoever, I am WAYYY past that age, idiot...  What an assumption to make, mr 29k poster.  I bet you made that post just to increase your post count.

mahlasor

what is your obession with people's post count

  Because I find a correlation between the rudeness of a poster to their post count.  My theory is they simply just make more post which results in the reduction of the post quality...

+1

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"] :Facepalm: Sure teaching Science is Indoctrination, yet forcing kids to say the Pledge every day that includes the phrase "Under God" is not..... Conservatives :Shakes my head:II_Seraphim_II

  We already got a bible that you can read on your own, we got the internet, public schools are pointless.  

edit: so what I am sayying is...  Do we really need public schools teaching stuff that we can learn on our own?

  Actually fvck both of them, I learned what I do not and did what I do now without them both.  I did it myself!

  It does because fallacy = logical error.  Well scientist do have a strong relation with government, like whether they get their budgets or whatever passed.  You just used an either or fallacy in the bolded.  Guess what, there is not a 97 percent consensus.  It is based on a survey, and I do not trust surveys so easily.  Btw, that is not how science is done, it is not by majority vote.  Look in the past, science discoveries have been made by ignoring the majority.  So is it hard to bleieve that maybe all these "scientist" are one day going to be seen as the ones who were wrong and misguided?

mahlasor

With respect to the either/or, I'll give you that (that it is not a particuarlly correct line of reasoning, not that your interpretation of it was correct, or your assumptions about my knowledge). And your Fallacy fallacy multiplier grows to 3x. Also my either/or is: is it more likely group 'a' is corrupt, or that the group 'b' is wrong. Not that group 'a' is correct.

"Well scientist do have a strong relation with government, like whether they get their budgets or whatever passed."

This != corruption, it's just some public funding. You seemed so certain, but you don't seem to have much to back up that certainty.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="mahlasor"]

  We already got a bible that you can read on your own, we got the internet, public schools are pointless.  

edit: so what I am sayying is...  Do we really need public schools teaching stuff that we can learn on our own?

mahlasor

  Actually fvck both of them, I learned what I do not and did what I do now without them both.  I did it myself!

  Anyways my ultimate feelings when it comes to explaining the origin of life or some crap like that..  THAT IS NOT what schools are supposed to really do, just teach the three Rs or whatever they call it and stfu about everything else.

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"] Public schools are not pointless, just like church's arent pointless. yes, you can read all this stuff online on your own, but a teacher can help you to understand where u wouldnt. Same as a holy man can help explain concepts in the bible you may not fully understand.II_Seraphim_II

  Actually fvck both of them, I learned what I do not and did what I do now without them both.  I did it myself!

  I know what you mean.  

  Anyways my ultimate feelings when it comes to explaining the origin of life or some crap like that..  THAT IS NOT what schools are supposed to really do, just teach the three Rs or whatever they call it and stfu about everything else.

mahlasor

People like you should have 'no' say in education.

An education system based on the "three R's" (reading, writing, arithmetic... actually it's read, regurgitate, repeat) alone, would be 'horrible'. It would be boring, tedious, monotonous, irksome, redundant, ect (just like this sentence).

A good education system should teach much more than just the basic necessities. It should expose students to as many subjects and ideas as reasonably possible, at the best possible quality. People don't know what they love 'til they experience it, and most people wont fall in love with the "three R's" alone. 

"If you do well in school, you'll make more money."
"You have to get good grades to get to college" 

These are not very good motivators to keep people interested in education. "I love -insert field here-." is.

----

Back to abiogensis, I think it's a shame that it 'isn't' taught in school. Unlike evolution, which you're just backing up a claim that is so well established*, abiogensis is open, it's full of new questions! It's much easier to think of an experiment in a field that is so uncertain, and to actually learn something new from that experiment, that you couldn't have previously looked up. It would be vastly more interesting than disecting a rat.

*This isn't to say that evolutionary biology isn't interesting, it is! 

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

  That does not even make sense whatsoever, I am WAYYY past that age, idiot...  What an assumption to make, mr 29k poster.  I bet you made that post just to increase your post count.

mahlasor

what is your obession with people's post count

  Because I find a correlation between the rudeness of a poster to their post count.  My theory is they simply just make more post which results in the reduction of the post quality...

Sorry that's "hypothesis" not "theory". Your continual misuse of the scientific language doesn't lend much credit to your assertions about scientists. If you don't even understand the scientific method how are you going to criticize it?

  Anyways my ultimate feelings when it comes to explaining the origin of life or some crap like that..  THAT IS NOT what schools are supposed to really do, just teach the three Rs or whatever they call it and stfu about everything else.

mahlasor

  Well global warming shouldnt be taught as fact when there is plenty of arguements against it.  Same as Evolution, it really is not an science, it is more of an hypothesis.  

mahlasor

I was with you for the first sentence.. than you went full special.

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]no, global warming and evolution, has been tested extensively, and thus is a theory.

Why do you think you have any credibility if you don't even know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

Like I said, you're stupid.

wis3boi

  No, actually you are a dumbass, you are dumb on purpose.  First of all you do not even know what I do or do not know, the most you should even claim is that I am ignorant.  Not stupid.  I would say you are at the very least, a bigot.

I suggest finishing middle school before continuing on your embarrassing rant

Thank god for the electoral college

Thank god for the electoral college

Shmiity

Actually, don't- Kansas will get mad. He has nothing to do with this.

Time to burn more Pokeman cartridges!

Science doesn't conflict with theism. playmynutz

Nope

I feel fvcking bad for their children.

Jolt_counter119

under this reasoning all children should be kept in a locked room with minimal outside contact as to not influence them in any way... MuD3

[QUOTE="playmynutz"]Science doesn't conflict with theism. wis3boi

Nope

  Well global warming shouldnt be taught as fact when there is plenty of arguements against it.  Same as Evolution, it really is not an science, it is more of an hypothesis.  

mahlasor

You need an education.

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

  Well global warming shouldnt be taught as fact when there is plenty of arguements against it.  Same as Evolution, it really is not an science, it is more of an hypothesis.  

Nuck81

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="playmynutz"]Science doesn't conflict with theism. ferrari2001

Nope

They've partitioned their brains like a hard drive, hence why they can hold conflicting beliefs. I understad many scientists are theists, they've just 'rationalized' it (even though it isn't rational).  They are also in the vast minority of scientists.  At least they don't let it conflict with their research, because they'd be useless in the lab.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

Nope

wis3boi

They've partitioned their brains like a hard drive, hence why they can hold conflicting beliefs. I understad many scientists are theists, they've just 'rationalized' it (even though it isn't rational).  They are also in the vast minority of scientists.  At least they don't let it conflict with their research, because they'd be useless in the lab.

[QUOTE="mahlasor"]

  Well global warming shouldnt be taught as fact when there is plenty of arguements against it.  Same as Evolution, it really is not an science, it is more of an hypothesis.  

tenaka2

You need an education.

  No... But I think you should continue your education :)

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"] What do you mean nope? Some of the greatest scientists in history have been religious. Hell the Big Bang was proposed and first postulated by a Catholic priest. Now science does conflicts with fundamentalism but they are, thank god, a dying breed. ferrari2001

They've partitioned their brains like a hard drive, hence why they can hold conflicting beliefs. I understad many scientists are theists, they've just 'rationalized' it (even though it isn't rational).  They are also in the vast minority of scientists.  At least they don't let it conflict with their research, because they'd be useless in the lab.

+1

you can't talk any sense into them.

hell they have a holy book where the bad guy kills like 7 people and the good guy kills 8 million and they worship the one that kills 8 million.

shyts senseless.

Science and religion aren't contradicting beliefs though?? Science hasn't disprove religion just as religion shouldn't reject scientific understanding. Stop grouping all theists as fundamentalists. ferrari2001

Science can certainly prove certain religious ideas and main stays as incorrect, from a fundamentalist point of view.  It just depends on how a person views certain stories and feats in religious texts (metaphors vs literal happenings).  Religion and a belief in God don't have to be synonymous with each other.  

As for God, of course science can't 'disprove' its existence.  Science deals with the natural world and God is considered supernatural.  

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"] What do you mean nope? Some of the greatest scientists in history have been religious. Hell the Big Bang was proposed and first postulated by a Catholic priest. Now science does conflicts with fundamentalism but they are, thank god, a dying breed. ferrari2001

They've partitioned their brains like a hard drive, hence why they can hold conflicting beliefs. I understad many scientists are theists, they've just 'rationalized' it (even though it isn't rational).  They are also in the vast minority of scientists.  At least they don't let it conflict with their research, because they'd be useless in the lab.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

They've partitioned their brains like a hard drive, hence why they can hold conflicting beliefs. I understad many scientists are theists, they've just 'rationalized' it (even though it isn't rational).  They are also in the vast minority of scientists.  At least they don't let it conflict with their research, because they'd be useless in the lab.

WickedChainy

those are just theories not facts

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"] What do you mean nope? Some of the greatest scientists in history have been religious. Hell the Big Bang was proposed and first postulated by a Catholic priest. Now science does conflicts with fundamentalism but they are, thank god, a dying breed. ferrari2001

They've partitioned their brains like a hard drive, hence why they can hold conflicting beliefs. I understad many scientists are theists, they've just 'rationalized' it (even though it isn't rational).  They are also in the vast minority of scientists.  At least they don't let it conflict with their research, because they'd be useless in the lab.

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

They've partitioned their brains like a hard drive, hence why they can hold conflicting beliefs. I understad many scientists are theists, they've just 'rationalized' it (even though it isn't rational).  They are also in the vast minority of scientists.  At least they don't let it conflict with their research, because they'd be useless in the lab.

Person0

[QUOTE="WickedChainy"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"] Science and religion aren't contradicting beliefs though?? Science hasn't disprove religion just as religion shouldn't reject scientific understanding. Stop grouping all theists as fundamentalists. lostrib

those are just theories not facts

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Person0"] Science disproves religious beliefs all the time. Then religions deny it and say its not enough evidence for a while until they can't deny the overwhelming evidence anymore and accept it.WickedChainy

[QUOTE="WickedChainy"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"] Again stop associating all theists as fundamentalists. Try and learn the difference. ferrari2001

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]

[QUOTE="WickedChainy"] So you want us to learn the beliefs of over 41,000 Christian denominations while you and several others in this thread are not even willing to learn the definition of a scientific theory?WickedChainy

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]

[QUOTE="WickedChainy"] So you want us to learn the beliefs of over 41,000 Christian denominations while you and several others in this thread are not even willing to learn the definition of a scientific theory?WickedChainy

[QUOTE="WickedChainy"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"] lol what are you going on about? The original argument was religion and science are incompatible which they are not. One can both believe in science and in religion without contradiction. What does the scientific theory, which just happened to be taught by many religious individuals over the centuries, have to do with it? Who said anything about learning 41,000 religious beliefs? God you are dense.ferrari2001

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="WickedChainy"] I'm saying that most christian denominations don't agree with science. Many people that aren't considered fundamentalists hold beliefs that aren't the same as what science has shown. Science doesn't fit with most christian denominations. Person0

"31% reject evolution and say that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. - Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues". PewResearch. 2009-07-09

Also "A majority of the public (61%) says that human and other living things have evolved over time" - same

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"] um where in the world do you get that information. Last time I checked 30% of the country were creationists, (which is still way to high) but that leaves 70% that believe in some form of evolution. Not to mention that the largest christian denomination the Catholic church officially confirmed evolution as a valid scientific theory as early as the 1950's. That doesn't even take into account the numerous scientific theories proposed by religious people. Anyone who rejects something like evolution because of creationism is a fundamentalist in my book. ferrari2001

"31% reject evolution and say that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. - Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues". PewResearch. 2009-07-09

Also "A majority of the public (61%) says that human and other living things have evolved over time" - same