• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Religion in Schools (split fm Islamic Terrorism)

lenaitch said:
If a theory is provable and ultimately proven, then it is no longer a theory; it becomes a fact until proven otherwise by more knowledge.
Click to expand...

I am in general agreement but I might phrase it differently respecting facts and theories.

My sense is that facts are things that can be observed measured and generally agreed on. Not necessarily universally agreed but accepted by most people. The sun rises in the east every day is a fact easily verified.

Theories are working hypotheses designed to create a framework for understanding. Some theories have lots of facts in evidence that support them, and I put evolution and the general theory of relativity in that camp. Those theories support predictions that suggest that the theory, if not correct is at least workable and valuable. It helps to make sense of our world.

On the other, we could be wrong.
 
IKnowNothing said:
@YZT580 - I think there's some confusion- I use "evangelical Leftist" in place of "woke". The opposite side of the coin to fundamentalist christians, Islamists etc.

If you feeling I'm trolling I apologize. What I'm trying to do is point out that having to tolerate others beliefs and not having your beliefs prioritized and catered to is not the same as "being forced to drop your beliefs"

Re- creationism. So should every religion's alternative to evolution be presented on equal footing, or just yours?
Click to expand...
If they have scientific validity then yes they should be taught as theories or at the very least mentioned.
Evangelical leftists and woke are in no way related and frankly it is insulting to use the two in the same sentence. Here is the wilki definition of evangelical:
An evangelical is a member of a Christian movement that emphasizes the importance of personal conversion, the authority of the Bible, and the sharing of the "good news" of Jesus Christ. Evangelicals are found across various Protestant denominations and are characterized by their commitment to evangelism and a belief in being "born again." There is a difference as well between being forced to drop your beliefs and having to hide them. There is a very enthusiastic church in Riyadh, in Cairo and even in Beijing but they are forced to meet in secret for fear of arrest and jail terms. I find it interesting that we constantly mention the two Micheals in China but forget the mission couple who spent even longer locked up there but that is beside the point. We are rapidly approaching the point where hiding beliefs other than "yours" (with yours referring to what society is currently deeming to be acceptable) is becoming necessary. The whole woke issue has demonstrated that beyond any doubt and the attitudes displayed in our public school system reinforces the need for an alternative choice in education (to get back on track)
 
lenaitch said:
You recall incorrectly. And it seems it didn't come from a tree farm.

news.novascotia.ca

Tree From Lunenburg County Chosen for Boston

news.novascotia.ca news.novascotia.ca



If a theory is provable and ultimately proven, then it is no longer a theory; it becomes a fact until proven otherwise by more knowledge. Matters of science may not be proven, and are indeed continually evolving as we learn more, but its theories are continually put to the test. Matters of religion are based on a book written by many authors several hundreds years after the facts they describe, and many of the conclusions of its adherents/hierarchy have remained essentially unaltered for centuries. I would be truly interested in a key element, event or cornerstone of religious dogma that has withstood scientific analysis.
Click to expand...
Actually, almost all of them that have been put under the microscope have been vindicated: none have been disproven although in honesty it isn't possible to provide evidence for some. In contrast the whole big bang theory depends upon a substance that has never been identified or seen or measured and it seems to make up 90% of the cosmos. There is no repeat no evidence for any creature evolving from another. All science points to evidence that the world and everything in it is in a state of decay yet evolution miraculously created birds from dinosaurs. Who wrote the code that is present in DNA? Because the code found in even the simplest single celled creature is hundreds of lines long.
 
OldSolduer said:
And what exactly happened?
Click to expand...
IF it’s the same guy, here’s what the Jesuit info-machine says:
jesuits.ca

Cigarettes, Coffee, and Justice: The Unusual Holiness of Martin Royackers, SJ  - Canada Province

Chain-smoking, dishevelled, even hearing confessions in a bar: Fr. Martin Royackers, SJ, never ceased to amaze. According to several sources, he rarely made a good first impression.
jesuits.ca jesuits.ca
If it’s someone different, I humbly defer to those with stronger Jesuit history chops than mine.
 
lenaitch said:
If a theory is provable and ultimately proven, then it is no longer a theory; it becomes a fact until proven otherwise by more knowledge. Matters of science may not be proven, and are indeed continually evolving as we learn more, but its theories are continually put to the test.
Click to expand...
Theories aren't really provable; they're disprovable. A theory is rarely (if ever) finally proven; it is just uncontradicted until it is contradicted on some point. It's rarely necessary to throw a theory away for the sake of one crack, but that does happen.

Creation theory falls into the set of theories for which it's too easy to just make stuff up.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Theories aren't really provable; they're disprovable. A theory is rarely (if ever) finally proven; it is just uncontradicted until it is contradicted on some point. It's rarely necessary to throw a theory away for the sake of one crack, but that does happen.

Creation theory falls into the set of theories for which it's too easy to just make stuff up.
Click to expand...
your comment is correct but also applies equally to evolution where much is made up and then replaced by another supposition when proven wrong. Have you seen the amount of bone from which they created Lucy? Nothing in either theory can be proved by science since science itself relies upon experiment and the ability to repeat the experiment with the same result. The big bang happened a very long time ago, if it happened, creation occurred 10,000 years ago. Neither has ever repeated itself and no experiment can replicate it. so in the end, answer the question for yourself: what seems most logical to you? full stop
 
YZT580 said:
your comment is correct but also applies equally to evolution where much is made up and then replaced by another supposition when proven wrong. Have you seen the amount of bone from which they created Lucy? Nothing in either theory can be proved by science since science itself relies upon experiment and the ability to repeat the experiment with the same result. The big bang happened a very long time ago, if it happened, creation occurred 10,000 years ago. Neither has ever repeated itself and no experiment can replicate it. so in the end, answer the question for yourself: what seems most logical to you? full stop
Click to expand...
There is experimental science, and there is observational science. The latter is how scientific method can be applied when experiments are impractical or unethical.
 
CadNav said:
I find it weird why they talk about creation alltogether... like, why is it a big deal if they don't talk about it?
Click to expand...
In Ontario, actual in depth study of evolution is left to grade 11 and 12 university prep Biology. I think the big bang theory is left for grade 9 science?

The real sticking point likely comes from things like geology, the rock cycle, and dinosaurs, at elementary ages. Basic core understanding of the history of the natural world that contradicts doctrine and leads to uncomfortable questions/ discussions.

YZT580 said:
Evangelical leftists and woke are in no way related and frankly it is insulting to use the two in the same sentence.
Click to expand...
Evangelical/ evangelistic also have accepted use as adjectives re: people who behave like Evangelical Christians but for other causes
Merriam Webster - "marked by militant or crusading zeal"
Britannica - "having very strong beliefs and often trying to persuade other people to have the same beliefs"
Dictionary.com - "marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause"

Much like the word "zealot" no longer strictly applies to a Jewish sect wanting to rebel against the Romans.


YZT580 said:
We are rapidly approaching the point where hiding beliefs other than "yours" (with yours referring to what society is currently deeming to be acceptable) is becoming necessary.
Click to expand...
This is like, laugh out loud ironic.
 
Brad Sallows said:
There is experimental science, and there is observational science. The latter is how scientific method can be applied when experiments are impractical or unethical.
Click to expand...
So? I don't understand your point. There has been no observed evolution since Darwin wrote his thesis on it, none. There have been observed changes within a species but no new species has been observed in the process of developing. There is no fossil chain that leads from one species to another. There are definitely changes that occur within a specie. Every farmer can confirm that: they breed constantly for greater milk production, higher protein retention, heavier fleece etc. but each variety comes with a price: genetic information is always lost. There is no indication whatsoever of new DNA information being created. The concept of evolution is counter-intuitive to what we know of entropy and the deterioration of all living creatures.
 
IKnowNothing said:
In Ontario, actual in depth study of evolution is left to grade 11 and 12 university prep Biology. I think the big bang theory is left for grade 9 science?

The real sticking point likely comes from things like geology, the rock cycle, and dinosaurs, at elementary ages. Basic core understanding of the history of the natural world that contradicts doctrine and leads to uncomfortable questions/ discussions.


Evangelical/ evangelistic also have accepted use as adjectives re: people who behave like Evangelical Christians but for other causes
Merriam Webster - "marked by militant or crusading zeal"
Britannica - "having very strong beliefs and often trying to persuade other people to have the same beliefs"
Dictionary.com - "marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause"

Much like the word "zealot" no longer strictly applies to a Jewish sect wanting to rebel against the Romans.



This is like, laugh out loud ironic.
Click to expand...
So, by your definition, your are an evangelist. :p
 
MrWhyt said:
are you under the impression that Lucy is the only A. afarensis specimen that has been discovered?
Click to expand...
Of course not. But all reconstructions are based upon similarly small bone samples. I chuckle over the Neanderthal issue. A creationist has never had a problem defining them as being human whilst evolutionists had them as being brute, thug-like, and primitive. It is only in the very recent past that archaeology has realized that they were every bit as human as your great etc. grandfather. In fact many of us show traces of Neanderthal ancestry. Interbreeding is a proof of same species and evidently we interbred quite successfully.
 
YZT580 said:
So, by your definition, your are an evangelist. :p
Click to expand...
Haha I suppose you could say that I'm evangelically opposed to evangelical minorities of all stripes trying to impose their will on the majority

I do not care what you believe, in fact I at times envy the devout in their faith. I just wish y'all would accept that your beliefs are for you to live by, not the rest of us. Mennonites are a great example of both, in a good way.
 
Last edited:
YZT580 said:
Of course not. But all reconstructions are based upon similarly small bone samples. I chuckle over the Neanderthal issue. A creationist has never had a problem defining them as being human whilst evolutionists had them as being brute, thug-like, and primitive. It is only in the very recent past that archaeology has realized that they were every bit as human as your great etc. grandfather. In fact many of us show traces of Neanderthal ancestry. Interbreeding is a proof of same species and evidently we interbred quite successfully.
Click to expand...
fundamentally the difference on the organizational hierarchy within human evolution is a dichotomy between lumpers and splitters. Anthropologists and to a lessor extent paleontogists are inveterate splitters. A holdover of typological essentialism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top