Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2009, 12:12 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
"Persecuting Christians again!"......in Texas...

EDUCATION -- 'STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES' OF EVOLUTION REMOVED FROM TEXAS CURRICULUM:

Yesterday, Texas's state board of education voted 8-1 against an amendment that would have maintained discussion of evolution's "strengths and weaknesses" in Texas classrooms. The phrase had been included in the state biology curriculum until a panel of teachers proposed removing it last September. Predictably, social conservatives "lobbied heavily" against the change. Board member Cynthia Dunbar (R) made the motion for the amendment, which was defeated by a vote of eight-to-seven. The vote was particularly significant because "Texas is one of the nation's biggest buyers of textbooks* ,and publishers are reluctant to produce different versions of the same material." As a result, other states are often forced to comply with Texas's standards. Dunbar claimed that the debate over "strengths and weaknesses" was not an issue of religion, but rather of free speech. Fellow board member Ken Mercer (R) argued that removing the controversial language from the curriculum constituted persecution against Christians. But supporters of the change say that "strengths and weaknesses" is simply a slogan designed to sneak creationism into classrooms. "These weaknesses that they bring forward are decades old, and they have been refuted many, many times over," said Kevin Fisher, former president of the Science Teachers Association of Texas. "It's an attempt to bring false weaknesses into the classroom in an attempt to get students to reject evolution."

*That explains why Dallas had 'text book repository' where Oswald hung out..
 

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #2 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2009, 02:31 PM
Ferre's Avatar
No Longer Active
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Poor Christians, no one likes them.

C'mon, they've been trying to get their magical fairy theory into science classes forever now, even a child knows when their fairy tales hold no ground and when to quit it, but not them, no, they are like immune for reason and keep repeating the same old defunct arguments over and over again, in the hope one day they might stick.



The bananaman is one of my favorites, that dude is better than satire, he is not doing this meant as satire...



His name is Ray Comfort btw, I'm a fan.


Here's one of his websites, with a new splendit video...

http://www.pulltheplugonatheism.com

And the funniest part is that they complain that the "science world" doesn't respect them.



Last edited by Ferre; 01-23-2009 at 02:35 PM.
 
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2009, 02:53 PM
Atom's Avatar
Senior Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I personally don't think that it is necessary to sneak creationism into classrooms, there's plenty about it on TV etc..
 
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2009, 03:24 PM
G10's Avatar
G10 G10 is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 05-10-04
Location: UK - Cheshire
Posts: 11,758
iTrader: 5 / 100%
I do.

Students should be taught both sides and decide for themselves what they want to accept.
__________________
Click Here for Chester Carpet Cleaners
Sequential Labeling - Sticker and Decal Printers
 
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2009, 03:39 PM
Ferre's Avatar
No Longer Active
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by G10 View Post
I do.

Students should be taught both sides and decide for themselves what they want to accept.
NO, that's NOT what science class is meant for. There's religion classes for myths and fairy tales.

I don't have to remind you about the Dover case do I?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

Let the church teach them the hogwash and let them decide what to accept is my motto.
 
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2009, 03:47 PM
G10's Avatar
G10 G10 is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 05-10-04
Location: UK - Cheshire
Posts: 11,758
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Ok, I apologise, if it is only a science based class then let them learn science.

I am no Christian but I do think that one should be more polite towards another's faith and not belittle their beliefs though and not CONSTANTLY be on a personal crusade (lol!) to pull it down.
__________________
Click Here for Chester Carpet Cleaners
Sequential Labeling - Sticker and Decal Printers
 
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2009, 05:40 PM
ScriptMan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 12,215
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by G10 View Post
I do.

Students should be taught both sides and decide for themselves what they want to accept.
I will be a little nice than Ferre.

The schools should teach science. The parents should teach religion.

And neither should undermine the efforts of the other which is really hard for the liberal educated school folks to do. The evangelical christians have the same problem on the other side.

Heck we have a "museum" about 70 miles north where the people and the rexs are walking together.

Makes me proud.!
__________________
SEO does not mean Spam Everywhere Online
Scriptman's Playhouse || Ramblings from an old man
 
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2009, 07:45 PM
Ferre's Avatar
No Longer Active
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Here's an excellent book review which is a very good read on this subject;

http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.h...a-a5e381a70472

(it's a couple of pages long, but worth the read)

Quote:
As recounted by Giberson, the history of creationism in America has itself been an evolutionary process guided by a form of natural selection. After each successive form of creationism has been struck down by the courts for violating the First Amendment, a modified form of the doctrine has appeared, missing some religious content and more heavily disguised in scientific garb. Over time, the movement has shifted from straight Biblical creationism to "scientific creationism," in which the very facts of science were said to support religious stories such as the Genesis creation and Noah's Ark, and then morphed into intelligent design, or ID, a theory completely stripped of its Biblical patina. None of this has fooled the courts. In 2005, a federal judge in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania rebuffed an attempt to introduce ID into the classroom, characterizing the enterprise as disguised creationism and branding its advocates liars. (Miller was an important witness for the prosecution, supporting the rejection of ID.) But of course this has not settled matters. Creationists have returned with appeals to our sense of fair play, urging schools to "teach the controversy"--and never mind that the controversy about evolution is not scientific, but social and political.

Quote:
It would appear, then, that one cannot be coherently religious and scientific at the same time. That alleged synthesis requires that with one part of your brain you accept only those things that are tested and supported by agreed-upon evidence, logic, and reason, while with the other part of your brain you accept things that are unsupportable or even falsified. In other words, the price of philosophical harmony is cognitive dissonance. Accepting both science and conventional faith leaves you with a double standard: rational on the origin of blood clotting, irrational on the Resurrection; rational on dinosaurs, irrational on virgin births. Without good cause, Giberson and Miller pick and choose what they believe. At least the young-earth creationists are consistent, for they embrace supernatural causation across the board. With his usual flair, the physicist Richard Feynman characterized this difference: "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." With religion, there is just no way to know if you are fooling yourself.

So the most important conflict—the one ignored by Giberson and Miller—is not between religion and science. It is between religion and secular reason. Secular reason includes science, but also embraces moral and political philosophy, mathematics, logic, history, journalism, and social science—every area that requires us to have good reasons for what we believe. Now I am not claiming that all faith is incompatible with science and secular reason—only those faiths whose claims about the nature of the universe flatly contradict scientific observations. Pantheism and some forms of Buddhism seem to pass the test. But the vast majority of the faithful—those 90 percent of Americans who believe in a personal God, most Muslims, Jews, and Hindus, and adherents to hundreds of other faiths—fall into the "incompatible" category.

Last edited by Ferre; 01-23-2009 at 07:49 PM.
 
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2009, 08:52 PM
Selif's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: 03-30-07
Location: Cherokee Village, Arkansas
Posts: 30
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Cool

I think one of the biggest problems I have with evolutionary theory and the scientists & such that back that theory is that anytime you question them about something, they seem most unwilling to answer "I don't Know" if they can't snap off a quick answer to something. All too often I've seen / read / heard about somebody getting their head bitten off and treated in a manner that reminds me a lot of the Inquisition simply because they had the unmitigated gall to question something. I thought science was all about questioning things, including it's own results.

and yes, I'm painfully aware that many Christians have the same problem in the other direction.
 
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2009, 09:27 PM
Loridori4's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-13-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 206
iTrader: 1 / 100%
How about if Science classes skip teaching origins of our existence, period!
Since evolution is a "theory", as well as the Big Bang and so on and so on, I say just skip it. That would apease both sides of the fight.
Science class should be based on science, fact, research and evidence. Not theories.
 
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2009, 11:08 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Science class should be based on science, fact, research and evidence. Not theories.
You've just described the scientific method....which results in...theories.

Theories aren't guesses...if you doubt that, try refuting the theory of gravity..
 
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2009, 07:31 AM
ScriptMan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 12,215
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
It would appear, then, that one cannot be coherently religious and scientific at the same time. That alleged synthesis requires that with one part of your brain you accept only those things ..........
That just isn't true. Let's take an analogy that all of you should be able to relate to. You are a webmaster; right? Do you wave a magic wand and create a web site? No you don't. You use tools and processes to perform that task.

A creator of heaven and earth could well be in a similar situation. Only one word in the book of Genesis eliminates the theory of a controlled process of evolution from realistic consideration. That word is days. Used in the context 7 days. Change days to periods, epochs or eons or some of measurement of time that the human mind could not phantom 5000 years ago and there is no conflict.

The recorded history is the bible had a long oral tradition before it was ever written down. Have you ever played the pass the verbal message game around a room? Even when people know they are being tested, the final message is not the exact same message at the end as it was at the beginning.

Exactly how many generations of your ancestors can you name to determine who begat you?

The creator gave you a mind for a purpose. Use it.
__________________
SEO does not mean Spam Everywhere Online
Scriptman's Playhouse || Ramblings from an old man
 
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2009, 09:01 AM
Loridori4's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-13-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 206
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Great analogy ScriptMan!
I attended several seminars of an evolution scientist, who became a Christian creation scientist after studying the Bible in order to refute creation.
Reason he stated for his change? He found more evidence for creation than he did evolution.
Just a few of his points I can remember:
Mt. Saint Helens-After it blew, the falling sediment formed walls of 10 feet high or more in numerous distinct layers.
A scientist looking at this sedimentary layer, and not knowing it's origin, would have said it took thousands of years to form. It took less than a day!
The earth as a "geo-clock". Scientists can and have measured the shrinking of the earth. It is constant and has been for years. If one reverses the shrinking, and "grows" the earth for a million years, we would be IN the sun! Obviously not possible.
This is just 2 illustrations of many. Sorry I can't remember the guys name, was about 25 years ago. Yeah, I'm that old!

OK..for a look at some creation scientists.....

Last edited by Loridori4; 01-24-2009 at 09:13 AM.
 
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2009, 12:17 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loridori4 View Post
Great analogy ScriptMan!
I attended several seminars of an evolution scientist, who became a Christian creation scientist after studying the Bible in order to refute creation.
Reason he stated for his change? He found more evidence for creation than he did evolution.
Just a few of his points I can remember:
Mt. Saint Helens-After it blew, the falling sediment formed walls of 10 feet high or more in numerous distinct layers.
A scientist looking at this sedimentary layer, and not knowing it's origin, would have said it took thousands of years to form. It took less than a day!
The earth as a "geo-clock". Scientists can and have measured the shrinking of the earth. It is constant and has been for years. If one reverses the shrinking, and "grows" the earth for a million years, we would be IN the sun! Obviously not possible.
This is just 2 illustrations of many. Sorry I can't remember the guys name, was about 25 years ago. Yeah, I'm that old!

OK..for a look at some creation scientists.....
I will check out your link at a later date....just want to comment on your post here:


First, what does a Christian Creation Scientist do?...read the Bible?..What are some recent discoveries they have made based on experimentation and the scientific method?

His example about St Helen's is truly simplistic...a scientist looking at Mt St Helen's would perform a few simple tests and would immediately determine that the top layer is just as old as the bottom layer.....scientists aren't as stupid as he portrays them....

The second example is absurd...why would the earth begin to grow?..If it did there would be reasons for it....like loss of gravity, etc....This is the kind of fuzzy thinking most creationists indulge in...it's pretty poor science!....
 
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2009, 03:43 PM
Loridori4's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-13-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 206
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by FocalPoint View Post
The second example is absurd...why would the earth begin to grow?..If it did there would be reasons for it....like loss of gravity, etc....This is the kind of fuzzy thinking most creationists indulge in...it's pretty poor science!....
No, the earth isn't going to grow! I meant that because the earth is measurably shrinking, that if you reverse the degree of shrinking by the number of years evolutionist say it's been around, it would be impossibly large.
 
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2009, 05:05 PM
Muddy's Avatar
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 12-03-08
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
That just isn't true. Let's take an analogy that all of you should be able to relate to. You are a webmaster; right? Do you wave a magic wand and create a web site? No you don't. You use tools and processes to perform that task.

A creator of heaven and earth could well be in a similar situation. Only one word in the book of Genesis eliminates the theory of a controlled process of evolution from realistic consideration. That word is days. Used in the context 7 days. Change days to periods, epochs or eons or some of measurement of time that the human mind could not phantom 5000 years ago and there is no conflict.

The recorded history is the bible had a long oral tradition before it was ever written down. Have you ever played the pass the verbal message game around a room? Even when people know they are being tested, the final message is not the exact same message at the end as it was at the beginning.

Exactly how many generations of your ancestors can you name to determine who begat you?

The creator gave you a mind for a purpose. Use it.
Was all physical creation accomplished in just six days sometime within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years?

The facts disagree with such a conclusion: (1)*Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (2)*End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.

Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation. This included creation of the basic kinds of vegetation, marine life, flying creatures, land animals, and the first human pair. All of this is said to have been done within a period of six “days.” However, the Hebrew word translated “day” has a variety of meanings, including ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ The term used allows for the thought that each “day” could have been thousands of years in length.
__________________
Spot free rinse systems for cars, trucks, boats, windows and more. www.magicrinse.com
 
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2009, 06:14 PM
ScriptMan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 12,215
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Thanks for your agreement.
__________________
SEO does not mean Spam Everywhere Online
Scriptman's Playhouse || Ramblings from an old man
 
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2009, 09:27 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
The recorded history is the bible had a long oral tradition before it was ever written down. Have you ever played the pass the verbal message game around a room? Even when people know they are being tested, the final message is not the exact same message at the end as it was at the beginning.
You make an excellent point here and given a good example of how funny and different the message becomes when it's passed around the room. Now take a very long message (The Bible) and pass it around the middle east, over several hundred centuries and what becomes of it? ...."The Babble"...
 
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2009, 09:32 PM
Muddy's Avatar
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 12-03-08
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
Thanks for your agreement.
*nods*
__________________
Spot free rinse systems for cars, trucks, boats, windows and more. www.magicrinse.com
 
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2009, 09:33 PM
Muddy's Avatar
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 12-03-08
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by FocalPoint View Post
You make an excellent point here and given a good example of how funny and different the message becomes when it's passed around the room. Now take a very long message (The Bible) and pass it around the middle east, over several hundred centuries and what becomes of it? ...."The Babble"...
Not to mention throwing in a few languages.
__________________
Spot free rinse systems for cars, trucks, boats, windows and more. www.magicrinse.com
 
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
<meta http-equiv="Pragma" content="no-cache" /> FGTH SEO Forum 4 06-21-2007 12:29 PM
Home page with "latest news", "news archive" and "update" tekitouni Web Design Lobby 1 09-19-2006 08:39 PM
"v7ndotcom elursrebmem" already bigger than "Nigritude Ultramarine"! Jim Westergren SEO Forum 31 01-21-2006 12:26 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Escalate Media




Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.