15 Sep 13
Originally posted by e4chrisWhy do you think they were not very nice people? You don't even know anything about them except for their support for Eugenics.
it is true, there were English people who supported eugenics yes, and I think Churchill was interested most academics of the day were. but they were not very nice people and they failed somewhat.
I do take anti creationists to mean pro eugenics , maybe i'm wrong and that's to simple but I do.
Your wrong, and in this case, its not simple, you clearly tried very hard to be wrong.
But I also can't see why atheists even will do Christmas with bells and whistles but somehow the first chapter from the bible is offensive to teach. its not at all.
Its not offensive to teach, its poor education to teach it as fact when it clearly isn't. But anti creationism isn't about stopping people teaching the first chapter of genesis. They are free to do so in Church or in Religious education, but it is not science and has no place in science class. I repeat, it is not offensive, its just plain wrong.
15 Sep 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs a general rule in this thread, you can make valid points against creationism and I will call you all fascists 🙂
Why do you think they were not very nice people? You don't even know anything about them except for their support for Eugenics.
[b]I do take anti creationists to mean pro eugenics , maybe i'm wrong and that's to simple but I do.
Your wrong, and in this case, its not simple, you clearly tried very hard to be wrong.
But I also can't see why a ...[text shortened]... ce and has no place in science class. I repeat, it is not offensive, its just plain wrong.
On your second point I disagree I think, what else do you teach? its close to perfect. I don't have any children but if I did I would raise them on bible stories specifically including Eden to start with.
In chemistry your taught about 'bonds' - a line - if you study it further they explain that was a lie, its all about electron density . These simplifications help people learn. I don't want to make out its too important, but again these atheists will have Christmas hijack their bank card but won't have the basic bible stories taught in school?
15 Sep 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadTeaching evilution in school is not science either. And it is just plain wrong to teach that lie.
Why do you think they were not very nice people? You don't even know anything about them except for their support for Eugenics.
[b]I do take anti creationists to mean pro eugenics , maybe i'm wrong and that's to simple but I do.
Your wrong, and in this case, its not simple, you clearly tried very hard to be wrong.
But I also can't see why a ...[text shortened]... ce and has no place in science class. I repeat, it is not offensive, its just plain wrong.
The Instructor
15 Sep 13
Originally posted by e4chrisAnti creationist means pro eugenics? Surely you're joking?
it is true, there were English people who supported eugenics yes, and I think Churchill was interested most academics of the day were. but they were not very nice people and they failed somewhat.
I do take anti creationists to mean pro eugenics , maybe i'm wrong and that's to simple but I do.
But I also can't see why atheists even will do Christmas w ...[text shortened]... whistles but somehow the first chapter from the bible is offensive to teach. its not at all.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Sep 13
Originally posted by e4chrisOK thanks you have just disqualified yourself to speak meaningfully about chemistry.
As a general rule in this thread, you can make valid points against creationism and I will call you all fascists 🙂
On your second point I disagree I think, what else do you teach? its close to perfect. I don't have any children but if I did I would raise them on bible stories specifically including Eden to start with.
In chemistry your taught about 'b ...[text shortened]... e Christmas hijack their bank card but won't have the basic bible stories taught in school?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by e4chrisI have BS in education, did an internship and was certified to teach chemistry and math, and took all the coursework for a PhD in chemistry (for family reasons I did a Master's thesis to save time.) I have worked at the bench in three industries and have published in two areas of atomic fluorescence and atomic absorption spectroscopy.
I have my lab books thankyou very much , you would explode if you tried to repeat them without a degree. good luck!
Chemistry models (develops models of) reality at the atomic and molecular level, in order to rationalize -- make rational -- our observations. Rationalizing our observations is a natural human drive. Even Bible believers do it.
An outmoded or defunct model of reality is not a "lie". Science, unlike religious dogma, is all about improving the models, while not claiming to have the final truth, ever, so science can't lie. But there are liars and half-educated people don't keep that fact straight. You must have had an inadequate education in what science is and does.
16 Sep 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm talking about the REST of the story. Are you ok with the US becomming Islamisized but in a Christian way, Abortion totally illegal and so forth?
Teaching evilution is the dumbing down of all science. Evilution is a lie that does not happen. I am ok with teaching the truth, not a lie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV7Z3Qo6wjU
The Instructor
16 Sep 13
Originally posted by e4chrisAnd as a general rule if someone has nothing but insults in response to what he recognises as a valid argument, then he has not only already lost the debate but is admitting that he is wrong and knows it.
As a general rule in this thread, you can make valid points against creationism and I will call you all fascists 🙂
The question is why you wish to persist with your claims even when you know you are wrong.
16 Sep 13
Originally posted by twhiteheaddoes that mean you can't fault my second point, you celebrate Christmas but somehow in your modern mind the book that it came from is wrong...
And as a general rule if someone has nothing but insults in response to what he recognises as a valid argument, then he has not only already lost the debate but is admitting that he is wrong and knows it.
The question is why you wish to persist with your claims even when you know you are wrong.
16 Sep 13
Originally posted by e4chrisI don't celebrate Christmas except as a nod to my Christian family. Some of my relations are Christians who celebrate it as a non-Christian celebration ie its not part of their religious beliefs but is part of their culture.
does that mean you can't fault my second point, you celebrate Christmas but somehow in your modern mind the book that it came from is wrong...
And by the way, since you clearly don't know this, Christmas does not come from the same book as Genesis. It comes from a variety of sources including European pagan traditions, Christian traditions invented to replace the pagan traditions, and modern commercialism.
And I do not want Christmas taught in science class in school.