20 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @moonbusIt is about assumptions.
Ah, the truth comes out at last. This isn't about assumptions at all. It isn't about turning water to wine or evolution or the age of the universe or how it got started. It's about politics! It's about public school curricula and trying to preach religion as if it were science in the public schools.
Religion should be taught as religion and science should be taught as science.
Your assumptions lead you to your beliefs. You pretend not to have assumptions, but that just goes to show your lack of intelligence or how deeply you've been brainwashed.
Schools should only teach real science, not unproven theories as fact. It confuses the weak minded. Most people in this forum are weak minded people.
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassI don't think this is quite right. Science produces theories about the world, the theories are testable in the sense that one can test the subset of predictions the theory makes that are amenable to experiment. That the answer to a given question is not directly testable does not mean the theory cannot provide it; it just means one's confidence in the answer depends on one's confidence in the theory.
Literally the entire purpose of science is to ask and, more importantly, answer questions.
Its simpler than you think. The only questions that science cannot answer are those that are not testable. That's the limitation.
20 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @deepthoughtIf you are going to teach about human origins, unless you know facts, you should not teach it to children.
I don't think this is quite right. Science produces theories about the world, the theories are testable in the sense that one can test the subset of predictions the theory makes that are amenable to experiment. That the answer to a given question is not directly testable does not mean the theory cannot provide it; it just means one's confidence in the answer depends on one's confidence in the theory.
Kids believe what they learn in school and if you are weak minded you will be convinced that what was incorrectly forced upon you is absolute truth.
School should not be used to teach any theory about origins since it can't be proven true and trods on the realm of religion.
If you believe anything about origins, you put your faith into something unknowable.
21 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarWhat does this have to do with my post?
If you are going to teach about human origins, unless you know facts, you should not teach it to children.
Kids believe what they learn in school and if you are weak minded you will be convinced that what was incorrectly forced upon you is absolute truth.
School should not be used to teach any theory about origins since it can't be proven true and trod ...[text shortened]... eligion.
If you believe anything about origins, you put your faith into something unknowable.
21 Oct 17
Originally posted by @deepthoughtYou are one of the weak minded.
What does this have to do with my post?
Originally posted by @eladarI was wrong. I kept thinking that you couldn't be that stupid.
I know that everyone who has communicated with me in this forum assumes that the creation account is false.
After all, you have a teacher's license, or whatever it is they issue in Oklahoma. You should have at least a hint of scientific knowledge.
But you are that stupid.
For the umpteenth time, no one here assumes the creation account is false, only that it lacks convincing evidence.
21 Oct 17
Originally posted by @handyandyYou are the fool.
I was wrong. I kept thinking that you couldn't be that stupid.
After all, you have a teacher's license, or whatever it is they issue in Oklahoma. You should have at least a hint of scientific knowledge.
But you are that stupid.
For the umpteenth time, no one here assumes the creation account is false, only that it lacks convincing evidence.
You assume that if there is a natural explanation then the Creation account is false.
You assume bevause God created a totally true universe, God must be false.
Yet you can't explain how matter came into existence. You don't ask that question because you can't answer it, therefore you feel good about your assumption.
21 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarIt's like talking to a brick wall.
You are the fool.
You assume that if there is a natural explanation then the Creation account is false.
You assume bevause God created a totally true universe, God must be false.
Yet you can't explain how matter came into existence. You don't ask that question because you can't answer it, therefore you feel good about your assumption.
21 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarI do not pretend to have no assumptions. I do not have the assumptions you impute to me.
It is about assumptions.
Your assumptions lead you to your beliefs. You pretend not to have assumptions, but that just goes to show your lack of intelligence or how deeply you've been brainwashed.
Schools should only teach real science, not unproven theories as fact. It confuses the weak minded. Most people in this forum are weak minded people.
Real science, as you call it, is not a bundle of what you think of as facts. Real science is a method of verifying hypotheses. If anyone here is confused about what science is and what its limits are, it is you.
If anyone here is making unwarranted assumptions leading to unproven beliefs, it is you. For example, your claim that everyone else here is unintelligent, brainwashed, and weak-minded.
As someone else elegantly put it, when you resort to argument ad hominem, it means you lost the argument already. Q.E.D.
21 Oct 17
Originally posted by @handyandyI have a bachelor's degree and had a teaching credential in California too.
I was wrong. I kept thinking that you couldn't be that stupid.
After all, you have a teacher's license, or whatever it is they issue in Oklahoma. You should have at least a hint of scientific knowledge.
But you are that stupid.
For the umpteenth time, no one here assumes the creation account is false, only that it lacks convincing evidence.
My SAT math score was a 720. Testing in elementary school regularly put my math score in the top 95th to 99th percentile.
I have kids consistantly score 4 and 5 on their AP calculus tests, which is no small feat in medium sized schools in Oklahoma.
So no, I am not stupid, but to weak minded people whose beliefs are in opposition to mine, I must appear stupid.
21 Oct 17
Originally posted by @moonbusThen you need to recognize what you call real science as having limits when it comes to determining truth.
I do not pretend to have no assumptions. I do not have the assumptions you impute to me.
Real science, as you call it, is not a bundle of what you think of as facts. Real science is a method of verifying hypotheses. If anyone here is confused about what science is and what its limits are, it is you.
If anyone here is making unwarranted assumptions lea ...[text shortened]... y put it, when you resort to argument ad hominem, it means you lost the argument already. Q.E.D.
21 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarI do recognize that science has limits. It does not distinguish miraculously produced wine from conventionally produced wine, for example. Nor does it detect evidence for the creation of the universe, the Earth, and life, in 6 days, by God as described in Genesis.
Then you need to recognize what you call real science as having limits when it comes to determining truth.
What you need to do is stop imputing to science tasks beyond its reach and then denegrating science for failure to deliver what is beyond its reach.
21 Oct 17
Originally posted by @moonbusIf it does not detect evidence of creation, perhaps it is because it can't.
I do recognize that science has limits. It does not distinguish miraculously produced wine from conventionally produced wine, for example. Nor does it detect evidence for the creation of the universe, the Earth, and life, in 6 days, by God as described in Genesis.
What you need to do is stop imputing to science tasks beyond its reach and then denegrating science for failure to deliver what is beyond its reach.
This is the truth that eludes your belief system.
21 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarThat that is a truth is your contention, not mine. This is the Science Forum; if you expect to be taken seriously, then present evidence for your contention and we will consider it.
If it does not detect evidence of creation, perhaps it is because it can't.
This is the truth that eludes your belief system.