15 May 06
Originally posted by sonhouseYeah, but those guys are fanatical idiots for the most part. The majority of Christianity is not like that 🙂
I wasn't saying Islam is taking over the US or even trying to take over here. I am saying there are forces in CHRISTIANITY trying to kill the concept of separation of church and state. They would not hesitate to make the US a theocracy, a Christianized version of Iran if they had the power. THEY being the likes of Pat Roberston and the slimey bottom feeders controlling GB.
15 May 06
Originally posted by sonhouseI totally agree with you that science is different than religion and peer review makes science much more solid than belief, though "peer review" is also driven a lot more by money than by virtue of science. Religion, by theocratic nature, has no such thing as peer review in most cases 🙂
There is a big problem with your conception as to what is science and what is theory and what is a story. Evolution has the weight of over a hundred years of piece by piece solving of puzzles seeing where part A fits with part B. You make a basic assumption, try to fit the data to your assumption and if the two seem to match, you write a paper professing yo ...[text shortened]... e because it is in the realm of folklore and religion and thats the proper domain for it.
My point though is that teaching, or at least reviewing, ID (or maybe even a basic watered down version of what Christians and/or other people view as the creation of the world) is ok because teenagers are not stupid kids who will believe what people tell them based on the fact that they are an authority figure. Just because a class is labeled as a science class doesn't mean that other things can't be taught.
In my experience, anyone who is fanatically for ID or fanatically opposed to ID needs to chill and look at things from a different perspective.
15 May 06
Originally posted by DraxusThere's money in reviewing scientific work? Man, I'm missing out - I'm an international grade referee and I've never seen a penny for it!
I totally agree with you that science is different than religion and peer review makes science much more solid than belief, though "peer review" is also driven a lot more by money than by virtue of science. Religion, by theocratic nature, has no such thing as peer review in most cases 🙂
My point though is that teaching, or at least reviewing, ID (or mayb ...[text shortened]... or fanatically opposed to ID needs to chill and look at things from a different perspective.
15 May 06
Originally posted by DraxusI was taught a "religious education" class at school, and that was only 10 years ago. Anyone else out there get the same???
Although I think your class would be interesting, I don't agree with you on what a science class should be. Just because science class uses the name "science" doesn't mean that it should only teach what scientists deem acceptable. Not only does normal core curriculum in our classes, including science class, completely stink, we would do a disservice to educ ...[text shortened]... ld see the same lessons being taught in a social studies class instead of a science class).
15 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI would think so because in essence a large part of scientific work is trying to get published in a journal. To be published it has to go through a lot of hands to make sure it is legit. Those hands work for the journal who needs to make a balance between producing a magazine that will sell and producing factual work.
There's money in reviewing scientific work? Man, I'm missing out - I'm an international grade referee and I've never seen a penny for it!
Thus we have the whole Korean cloning fiasco.
As for your other question. It has been about six years since I graduated from high school. There was a religious seminary that offered classes outside of the school, but there was no religion being taught in the actual school system.
If schools did teach a general class on religion, it would be a better place for learning about the creationistic myths of other world religions. I totally agree with that.
15 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIt was Venezuela by the way.
[b]also the christian, so-called christians like Pat Robertson who openly called for the assasignation of the president of peru.[b]
Other notable Pat Robertson moments include praying for Hurricane Gloria to miss South Carolina; the hurricane subsequently struck New England, causing huge amounts of damage. Interpreting this as an act from God, he decided to run for president.
Why is my type bold?
15 May 06
1 edit
OK enough of this, yes there are christian fundamentalists that are somewhat embarrassing, but they don't control the western governments they exist in. Can we at least agree that Islam, which controls any government it infects, is an ass-sucking religion that limits thought and destroys personal freedom ?
So it seems so to me. Go to Islam-land anywhere and say something like "you know, muhammed kinda blows" and see what happens to you. Then go to any western nation and wear a t-shirt to the mall with a picture of Jesus smoking dope and being ass fucked by a donkey...no one will say a word.
But show one picture of muhammed in a cartoon and people start dying.
15 May 06
Originally posted by DraxusYou do not get paid for reviewing Journal articles. Likewise, you do not pay for submitting them (normally). Editors get a stipend from the Journal, paid directly to their university, to cover part of their wages.
I would think so because in essence a large part of scientific work is trying to get published in a journal. To be published it has to go through a lot of hands to make sure it is legit. Those hands work for the journal who needs to make a balance between producing a magazine that will sell and producing factual work.
Thus we have the whole Korean clonin ...[text shortened]... for learning about the creationistic myths of other world religions. I totally agree with that.
A journal is not like a magazine in any way. Take a look at a journal webpage and you'll see that they are serious endeavours, with each paper only really being of interest to specialists in that field, hence there is little "popularisation". We read these things out of a quest for knowledge, not bedtime reading.
The sort of magazine I think you are referring to is something like "New Scientist" not a Journal like 'The Journal of experimental botany' (where you can see my recent paper in the advance access section, Carvalho DD, Irving LJ et al.). It's important to differentiate between a magazine and a serious scientific article.
15 May 06
Originally posted by General PutzerYes, let's redress that balance by publishing a cartoon of Jesus being sodomised whilst he snorts coccaine off a 12 year old boys buttock, see how well THAT goes down in Texas.
OK enough of this, yes there are christian fundamentalists that are somewhat embarrassing, but they don't control the western governments they exist in. Can we at least agree that Islam, which controls any government it infects, is an ass-sucking religion that limits thought and destroys personal freedom ?
So it seems so to me. Go to Islam-land ...[text shortened]... e will say a word.
But show one picture of muhammed in a cartoon and people start dying.
15 May 06
Originally posted by Ramiri15probably the bold tag on the "original post" didn't have a closing tag, or you deleted the closing tag, or whatever.
It was Venezuela by the way.
Other notable Pat Robertson moments include praying for Hurricane Gloria to miss South Carolina; the hurricane subsequently struck New England, causing huge amounts of damage. Interpreting this as an act from God, he decided to run for president.
Why is my type bold?
at the start of your post, put the closing tag: the string [ / b ] minus the spaces; the bold should go away. (i had to put the spaces so it wouldn't be interpreted as an actual tag, then it wouldn't show up.)
15 May 06
Originally posted by General PutzerWhat are you talking about? Fundies ALREADY control the gov't. What do you think GW meant when he said God wants me to attack Iraq?
OK enough of this, yes there are christian fundamentalists that are somewhat embarrassing, but they don't control the western governments they exist in. Can we at least agree that Islam, which controls any government it infects, is an ass-sucking religion that limits thought and destroys personal freedom ?
So it seems so to me. Go to Islam-land ...[text shortened]... e will say a word.
But show one picture of muhammed in a cartoon and people start dying.
What do you think he meant by saying he thought ID should be taught side by side with evolution? The only thing saving us from being a theocracy is the separation of powers in the three parts of government. If such a government existed in Iran, or other muslim countries, they could not completely take over like they already did.
BTW there are Muslim countries that manage to keep the concept of separation of church and state, like Indonesia and Turkey.
15 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DraxusHere is the main point. The majority of ISLAMS are not terrorists. It is a crazed minority that can cause damage to whole countries far outweighing the actual ratio of majority v minority numbers.
Yeah, but those guys are fanatical idiots for the most part. The majority of Christianity is not like that 🙂
The same thing happens in christianity, the crazed bottom feeders causes trouble way out of proportion to their minoritiness. Look at the damage one person can do with a bomb. Think about that person with a portable nuke. The actual numbers are meaningless.