{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/26/2013 5:06:38 AM
1
That's nice, but proper education is advised.
English
-
Already have one. But nice try.
-
You are obviously mistaking. I don't know why you can't understand the most basic principle of science when you claim to be "well educated" in it.
-
I do. It's you who doesn't know. The validity of theories varies. The sooner you understand that, the sooner we can end this.
-
Изменено (Vicex): 1/26/2013 5:16:48 AMYes, it may vary, but Creationism IS NOT supported by facts or any hypothesis that can be tested, therefore: it IS NOT a theory in the scientific sense.
-
You ever heard of that shroud people were making a big deal over that apparently had the face of Jesus? People have tested crucifixion, the archeology, history of Jesus, etc to try to test the whole rising from the dead scenario. Also, people have attempted to test for spirits and angels. The various things in creationism is tested.
-
You know damn well as I do that, that's not how it works.
-
What do you mean that's not how it works? Just because the test are poorly conducted and don't have a good outcome doesn't mean you can't form a theory from the vague findings.
-
You are not testing creationism, you are "testing" (if you could even call it that) the existance of supernatural beings' (Spirits, Angels, etc.) and a human's (Jesus) existences.
-
Which tie into creationism. You have to test the concept of an afterlife and things that tie in with God to validate that he even exists to some extent.
-
But it's not a Science. Creationism is not a Science. Nothing is Scientific about it. Why teach it in a Science class? Think about it this way (though I doubt you will): when you learn about Biology in the 10th grade, anyone who's Christian, Jewish, Hindu, what-have-you will already know about the idea of Creationism. Therefore, the only purpose to have it in the class is to convert people. This is not something a school should be doing.
-
Shouldn't it be more to inform as opposed to convert? Conversion could be a byproduct, but I would think informing would be the main objective.
-
Изменено (CrazzySnipe55): 1/26/2013 5:53:30 AMThat's what I'm saying though, anyone who doesn't know about Creationism by the age of 15/16 will know about it via osmosis in a year or two anyway. Explaining the idea of Creationism to someone literally takes 30 seconds. There's no reason for an educational institution to A) teach a nonscientific subject in a science class or B) teach kids random things in nonrelated classes that they should know by now. Should we teach kids how to use a microwave in Economics class? How to separating clothes and doing laundry in Calculus?
-
Can't lie. You have a point. Took me about a few minutes to get everything when I was little. I don't see what they would do in regards to structure and how in depth they'd go.
-
Speaking as someone who was taught Intelligent Design in Biology last year, there was a grand total of two paragraphs on it in the whole book and one obligatory test question on it and then it was gone, but it's existence in the curriculum was irksome nonetheless.
-
People really do teach it? I thought that was must a proposition. Well, so surprise that there wasn't much to it.
-
I'm in a blue district (Lehigh County) in a blue state (Pennsylvania) so the fact that it's even there is shocking, but I could see a Bible Belt state having a curriculum that has a chapter of each... somehow. Not sure how you do that short of just a shitload of bible verses.
-
But you cannot test the existence of an 'afterlife' or the 'creationist theory'.
-
Изменено (Dredd): 1/26/2013 5:43:10 AMYes, yes you can. You can kill and revive someone in a controlled experiment which is one method. Sort of testing the claims and validity of people who claimed to have seen an afterlife during a near death experience.
-
[quote]Yes, yes you can. You can kill and revive someone in a controlled experiment which is one method. Sort of testing the claims and validity of people who claimed to have seen an afterlife during a near death experience.[/quote] You can't beause it is not ethical to do so, and also what people 'claim' to see is hardly testing a hypothesis, there is no facts or unbiased guidelines to make an observation of such an event. A more plausible explanation is simply hallucination, which is known to occur in such a situation.
