Waiting for Fitzgerald

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
spanky. i love you, and you know that. But those guys think you're an idiot. So when you say I lose that means I win.

183-12

Okay, now this is just plain stupid.

179-16.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Would you find me the post where I said there was 1? Any?

189-12

No. And if you think that anybody here is going to accept a denial on your part that the existence not just of god, but of A God, is a necessary implication of your argument, then I'm assessing another penalty stroke.

179-17.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not for nothing, but at one time 99% of scientists believed the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat.

And if they had had science class at that time, then you can believe that's what would have been taught in it. You see, the thing that separates science from religious orthodoxy is that science recognizes its fallability and adjusts its teaching to reflect new knowledge. Science also acknowledges its gaps.

Religious orthodoxy does neither. That's why the Church tried to excommunicate Gallileo and Copernicus but the scientific community welcomed the work of Gregor Mendel.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
And if they had had science class at that time, then you can believe that's what would have been taught in it. You see, the thing that separates science from religious orthodoxy is that science recognizes its fallability and adjusts its teaching to reflect new knowledge. Science also acknowledges its gaps.

Religious orthodoxy does neither. That's why the Church tried to excommunicate Gallileo and Copernicus but the scientific community welcomed the work of Gregor Mendel.

I'm the last person that wants religion taught in schools (or anywhere else). I'm just quibbling with the idea (not yours) that because the scientific world believes it, then it is a fact.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not for nothing, but at one time 99% of scientists believed the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat.

Yes that is true. I never said that 99% of the scientists were always right. There is just no other way to do it. If the scientists don't decide what we teach then who? My guess is that the scientists are wrong much less of the time than the politicians.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
No. And if you think that anybody here is going to accept a denial on your part that the existence not just of god, but of A God, is a necessary implication of your argument, then I'm assessing another penalty stroke.

179-17.

All I asserted existed was a young filipino boy who believed and wanted to know why it was okay to teach something that made him feel bad about his religion. Do you think the Puritains would have approved.

This is different from a state approved religion taught to discredit other religions how?

198-12

[Gattigap]

I'm in. Lemme know.

From Spanky's stories, though, I'm expecting to see a serious entourage surrounding him, though. More silicon than in the valley.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
All I asserted existed was a young filipino boy who believed and wanted to know why it was okay to teach something that made him feel bad about his religion. Do you think the Puritains would have approved.

This is different from a state approved religion taught to discredit other religions how?

198-12

The purpsoe of education is not to make people feel good or bad about their religion, the purpose is to educate. In science class that is to teach the truth the best the science community knows it at the time. If someone's religion beliefs are in conflict with what is taught in science class, that it tough. If the science education curriculum was designed around what didn't conflict with religious ideas the classes would last about two seconds.

It is not OK to teach religious ideas to students in public schools (that is state sponsored religion), but it is OK to teach scientific ideas that conflict with religious ideas. Thre is no rule against the government establishing science just against the government establishing a religion.

The Puritans (whom I am decedent from so I can rag on them all I want) wouldn't approve but they set up a theocracy and burned witches. The Puritans democrat and tolerance credentials are highly suspect.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
All I asserted existed was a young filipino boy who believed and wanted to know why it was okay to teach something that made him feel bad about his religion. Do you think the Puritains would have approved.

This is different from a state approved religion taught to discredit other religions how?

198-12

Hank Chinaski, Post # 3543:

What is different between laying out in school 1 the primordial ooze theory, which is untestable and really just hindsight reconstruction to explain something non-creationists want explained and 2 maybe God started stuff and it evolved from there and he came back occasionally to prod (i.e. Organ systems start).

179-17.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Hank Chinaski, Post # 3543:

I did not saying I believe in either. I merely ask if the evidence of both isn't about equal. I'm right and you're wrong, but worse you who are arguing with manifestly don't know what you're talking about. You talk science as your god and scientists as your priests.

205-12

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
The purpsoe of education is not to make people feel good or bad about their religion, the purpose is to educate. In science class that is to teach the truth the best the science community knows it at the time. If someone's religion beliefs are in conflict with what is taught in science class, that it tough. If the science education curriculum was designed around what didn't conflict with religious ideas the classes would last about two seconds.

It is not OK to teach religious ideas to students in public schools (that is state sponsored religion), but it is OK to teach scientific ideas that conflict with religious ideas. Thre is no rule against the government establishing science just against the government establishing a religion.

The Puritans (whom I am decedent from so I can rag on them all I want) wouldn't approve but they set up a theocracy and burned witches. The Puritans democrat and tolerance credentials are highly suspect.

There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17.

"The path of the
righteous man is beset on all sides
by the inequities of the selfish
and the tyranny of evil men.
Blessed is he who, in the name of
charity and good will, shepherds
the weak through the valley of the
darkness. For he is truly his
brother's keeper and the finder of
lost children.
And I will strike down upon thee
with great vengeance and furious
anger those who attempt to poison
and destroy my brothers. And you
will know I am the Lord when I lay
my vengeance upon you."

Now I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker 'fore you popped a Guernica or Gilligan post on his ass.

But I saw some shit last year made me think I should be nicer. Now I'm thinkin', it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And my flaming ability is the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could by you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that.

But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin' Spanky. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17.

"The path of the
righteous man is beset on all sides
by the inequities of the selfish
and the tyranny of evil men.
Blessed is he who, in the name of
charity and good will, shepherds
the weak through the valley of the
darkness. For he is truly his
brother's keeper and the finder of
lost children.
And I will strike down upon thee
with great vengeance and furious
anger those who attempt to poison
and destroy my brothers. And you
will know I am the Lord when I lay
my vengeance upon you."

Now I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker 'fore you popped a Guernica or Gilligan post on his ass.

But I saw some shit last year made me think I should be nicer. Now I'm thinkin', it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And my flaming ability is the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could by you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that.

But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin' Spanky. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.

Don't hold back on account of me. I can take it. But, Hank, don't take the side of voodoo and psuedoscience. Evolution is a fact.

The question of whether or not their is intelligence design to the universe is a subject for philosophy class. And just because science has figured out how the sun rises, does not mean there is no God, and just as because man has figured out where we came from biologically does not mean there is no God.

Biology is for Biology class, and there is no room for discussion of supernatural forces in Biology class.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Don't hold back on account of me. I can take it. But, Hank, don't take the side of voodoo and psuedoscience. Evolution is a fact.

The question of whether or not their is intelligence design to the universe is a subject for philosophy class. And just because science has figured out how the sun rises, does not mean there is no God, and just as because man has figured out where we came from biologically does not mean there is no God.

Biology is for Biology class, and there is no room for discussion of supernatural forces in Biology class.

Spanky, if you've been reading my posts you know I don't question evolution where it has evidence. The dispute comes where it's pure conjecture, because coincidentially that is where it could be god instead. and I'm not arguing either is right. I'm just saying your beloved scientist don't know either.

Would you like your kids to be taught global warming is a fact?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Critical Greenland ice cap found to have been thickening over the last eleven-year period.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science...eut/index.html

Scientists blame global warming.

But at least the scientists are measuring the ice cap. The creatonists are looking for a cite in Revelations.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
But at least the scientists are measuring the ice cap. The creatonists are looking for a cite in Revelations.

S_A_M

W.A.T.E.R.