Author Topic: WTF PAKISTAN??  (Read 5481 times)

There is no logical reason why schools should not also teach biblical creationism alongside the theory of evolution in science classes.
Yes there is.
That logical reason is the fact that you're in a science class.

Creationism does not fit science at all. It is entirely based on belief/faith. It is not a part of science. People shouldn't try to put it alongside scientific theories like that.


Instead, you teach Creationism in a Religious Education, or a Philosophy class.
A class where you are taught that these are the beliefs of different religions/cultures. They are not science, because they are not scientifically backed up (a few people proposing ideas doesn't make it scientifically backed up, since the overwhelming majority of religious-believers believe what they do because of faith, not scientific reasoning. To some it's even a bad thing to try and scientifically provide reason for religious concepts, because it leads away from faith).

Now you can have people who are taught the scientific viewpoint. And they are also taught of the varying religious viewpoints (there's more than one).
But you're not teaching religious views as science, because they're not.
You can let students choose which they believe in (and believing is fine), but as part of education, they still have to understand both scientific findings and religious belief. Anyone can understand both while adhering to just one of them, or even neither.

People can understand that the Scientific ideas are explained through scientific principles, such as empiricism.
And people can simultaneously understand that Religious ideas are explained through faith and religious text/tradition.

There's no need to not teach both. You simply don't teach just one of them.
And you make sure you identify them as being different. Students can choose by themselves if they want to place one on a higher level than the other.

Don't back out just yet, I was looking forward to seeing the evidence for creationism


holy pot where have you been

even if you believe in creationism, it's really not scientific, lol
no reason to teach it in science classes. that's what history and religion classes are for

Aww man, Planr went offline. I guess that means I'm never gonna get to see that mountain of evidence for creationism he was about to unleash on all us heathens. :panda:

"Butt, the police official, said Parveen's father surrendered after the incident and called the murder an "honor killing."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pakistani-woman-stoned-death-family-article-1.1806700#ixzz33cMoZCS4"

"Butt"

Scientists have never actively observed the theory of evolution taking place. They have only observed organisms adapting to their environment, and those adaptations have always only gone so far.
This part was my personal favorite.

They've adapted to their environment but "only so far"? Are you expecting evolution to work a little more like this?

You have a fundamental lack of understanding if gradual adaptations to environmental pressures doesn't equate to evolution in your mind

Aww man, Planr went offline. I guess that means I'm never gonna get to see that mountain of evidence for creationism he was about to unleash on all us heathens. :panda:
maybe he had to go absolve his sin of talking to an evolutionist! ever consider that, you loving disrepectful intolerant fascist motherforgeter?

this is satire, dont you dare report this
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 06:40:57 PM by The Magical Dunes »

This part was my personal favorite.
It's funny because I saw a post from someone on facebook with a video of some bald guy yelling about how the theory of evolution 'is only a theory because it's not observable' just 5 minutes ago. It has 175k shares and 17k likes, so I think we've found where Planr gets his sources from.

The only problem is that evolution is completely observable, and what Planr described as scientists 'observing organisms adapting to their environment' is literally the definition of evolution by natural selection.

Also, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation. A key sign of someone who knows jack stuff about science is when they start trying to create this hierarchy where it goes facts > laws > theories from best to worst.

Society is in a position to tell people how to live. It's pretty much the only way that a group of people can coexist without killing each other. That's the whole idea behind a nation of laws that forbid stuff like reckless driving and murder.

I don't get your big deal with 'telling people how to live'. That's the whole point of organized society, and without it we'd literally and figuratively unleash anarchy.
You seem to have mixed western standard of living with law and order. What you have in mind is imperialism.

You seem to have mixed western standard of living with law and order. What you have in mind is imperialism.
I don't think that's what the word imperialism means...

I think evolution undoubtedly takes place but it might be a little much to say that it is definitely the source of life on our planet. Using radioisotopes to date things is always a bit fuzzy and even if you can confirm the presence of a simple single-celled ancient organism there is really no way of knowing whether or not it came about from non-life or whether or not some aliens placed some test tubes on an asteroid and launched it our way.

I think they teach about the primordial soup theory as if it was fact in science classes. It should probably be presented more along the lines of, look at this theory, it seems reasonable.

I think evolution undoubtedly takes place but it might be a little much to say that it is definitely the source of life on our planet. Using radioisotopes to date things is always a bit fuzzy and even if you can confirm the presence of a simple single-celled ancient organism there is really no way of knowing whether or not it came about from non-life or whether or not some aliens placed some test tubes on an asteroid and launched it our way.

I think they teach about the primordial soup theory as if it was fact in science classes. It should probably be presented more along the lines of, look at this theory, it seems reasonable.

i like reasonable people like you

I think evolution undoubtedly takes place but it might be a little much to say that it is definitely the source of life on our planet. Using radioisotopes to date things is always a bit fuzzy and even if you can confirm the presence of a simple single-celled ancient organism there is really no way of knowing whether or not it came about from non-life or whether or not some aliens placed some test tubes on an asteroid and launched it our way.

I think they teach about the primordial soup theory as if it was fact in science classes. It should probably be presented more along the lines of, look at this theory, it seems reasonable.
Evolution != Abiogenesis



tee hee naseem butt

I don't think that's what the word imperialism means...
Take this movie poster for example, study it

If you took ap history you would recognize this image.

try this one on for size

Evolution != Abiogenesis



tee hee naseem butt
Notice how I stopped talking about evolution with regard to already living things and switched to talking about the evolution of a nonliving thing to a living thing and the primordial soup thing. Please reread.

Also, abiogenesis can be a result of the evolution of nonliving things. If a particular chemical happens to be self replicating, then it would make sense that soon there would be a lot of these chemicals. Eventually, random chance could make these chemicals more complex and they may begin to form groups which have different parts with different functions that happen to be the configuration that replicate themselves more often. Eventually, these could pass the magical threshold of counting as life. Essentially, things that aren't life can still evolve as long as they replicate. These things could eventually become life.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 09:26:00 PM by Doomonkey »