[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

Great, then it should be a snap for you to answer the question.

Apparently not so easy to answer it honestly.

Teaching kids there is no God is not science. Doesn't belong in science class. As you've pointed out. Logic does not dissuade a troll though.

Randy

[Cavalry Doc]

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Or you could just spit it out and ask what you want to know without preconditions or limits in the answers you'll accept.

At the moment what I'd like to know is which part of post 30 addresses any of my points in post 36.

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Ha ha ha. So if there is background radiation, there can be no deities?

I've never claimed backgroud radiation was evidence of the nonexistence of deities. Why would I start now?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

There is a leap of faith there, whether you see it or not.

Well, I see you making a leap of faith. Is that what you meant?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Things may appear to "just happen". Ok. Are things required to just happen?

Depends on what you mean be "required," but yes, things are required to happen.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

It is an unknown, and you've chosen what to believe, it's ok, I support that choice.

You still haven't answered the question "Do you chose to believe in gravity?"

I have faith you never will.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Be comfortable in your own skin.

I am, but thanks for the advice.

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

I guess that rules out the teaching of macro evolution then.

Why disregard the evidence?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by ksg0245

I've never claimed backgroud radiation was evidence of the nonexistence of deities. Why would I start now?

Start with post 38, then follow it back to here.

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Start with post 38, then follow it back to here.

Sorry, no; wasting time on another of your wild goose chases isn't high on my list of priorities. If you think I've claimed background radiation disproves deities, produce the post.

[Lone Wolf8634]

In a philosophy course, or better yet, in a class I took in HS called "Mythologies of the World". Thats where it belongs.

When evidence arises, that support ID, than it could be included in science classes. Until then, its a myth. No different from all of the myths that came before it, and surely no different than all to come after it. Despite ridiculous claims that it deserves equal attention.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by ksg0245

Sorry, no; wasting time on another of your wild goose chases isn't high on my list of priorities. If you think I've claimed background radiation disproves deities, produce the post.

Well, since you need someone to hold your hand and walk you though all three pages...

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Looks like we are going to have to disagree.

It's an argument from ignorance vs an argument from incredulity. Both sides have to make a choice. I've said that since there is no evidence either way, either is possible. You made your choice, and only want that side taught. I'd prefer it was neutral, and somehow that makes me the unreasonable one.

Originally Posted by ksg0245

"No evidence either way" is an incorrect statement.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Prove it.


A lack of knowledge about how the universe came to be exists. There is no evidence of what caused that event.

If some people want to believe it was an inteligence that set it off, that's ok. If some want to believe it just happened, that's ok too. Neither should be presented as more plausible in a public school. Even playing field.

Originally Posted by ksg0245

Cosmic background radiation.

Transitional fossils.

Age of the earth.



I agree.



Wrong. There is evidence things can "just happen." It's been discussed in GTRI before. There is no evidence for deities.

Guess you could now claim that you didn't understand what you were posting, or didn't mean to make it look like you were offering evidence that no god exists, but you did.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

First thing to note, is that the entirety of human existence is not included in this thread.

Which is relevant how exactly?

Second is that science is being used to pretend that it supports atheism, which it most certainly does not, to the objective observer.

You keep saying things like this. Why don't you try actually supporting these claims with actual examples, if only just for variety.

The question remains unanswered, unless you've made a leap of faith... then you have an answer you can believe in.

What question is that exactly?

You'll probably not be able to admit that this is what you were asking me to produce, but that's OK. Science does not equal atheism, but it is being taught that way.

Science equals science, something that's been said repeatedly. Things like ID aren't science, not because of deities or a lack of deities but because there's no evidence to support their claims. How many times do you need this repeated?

If you want to, you could have easily found other examples. HERE

We've played this game before too. None of the links on the first page of your search are about atheism being taught to the exclusion of other beliefs or about atheism being taught as part of a science class. Shouldn't these little "examples" of yours support your position?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

Which is relevant how exactly?
You keep saying things like this. Why don't you try actually supporting these claims with actual examples, if only just for variety.
What question is that exactly?
Science equals science, something that's been said repeatedly. Things like ID aren't science, not because of deities or a lack of deities but because there's no evidence to support their claims. How many times do you need this repeated?
We've played this game before too. None of the links on the first page of your search are about atheism being taught to the exclusion of other beliefs or about atheism being taught as part of a science class. Shouldn't these little "examples" of yours support your position?

I think schools should not get involved in the debate between theism and atheism, and if I understand you correctly, you don't believe that atheism is being portrayed in classrooms as supported by science. You have read the thread, and so I am pretty sure you are being intentionally obtuse.

We are running around in circles. I am pretty sure there is nothing I can say that will have you capitulate in this thread. There is no amount of evidence or argument that you will find convincing. And upon about a half seconds consideration, I've discovered that I can live with that.

We will just have to disagree.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I think schools should not get involved in the debate between theism and atheism, and if I understand you correctly, you don't believe that atheism is being portrayed in classrooms as supported by science. You have read the thread, and so I am pretty sure you are being intentionally obtuse.

Interesting accusation. It would be far more interesting if you'd replied to any of the requests for actual examples with more than a couple of personal anecdotes. You've been asked both for examples of students being taught that atheism is part of science and for examples of people on these threads advocating teaching atheism as part of science classes. You've provided neither.

We are running around in circles. I am pretty sure there is nothing I can say that will have you capitulate in this thread. There is no amount of evidence or argument that you will find convincing. And upon about a half seconds consideration, I've discovered that I can live with that.

You could try producing some evidence that supports your position or claims. For the sake of variety if nothing else.

We will just have to disagree.

That does appear to be the case. I'll just have to take comfort in knowing that my position is the only one supported by evidence and which doesn't require ignoring all the contrary information.

[Kingarthurhk]

If Atheism is not being taught in the public school ciriculum can someone please explain why the National Associatian of Biology Teachers released this statement in 1995:

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification."

Clearly this is an Atheist position, e.g. Atheism is being taught in the public school system.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

Interesting accusation. It would be far more interesting if you'd replied to any of the requests for actual examples with more than a couple of personal anecdotes. You've been asked both for examples of students being taught that atheism is part of science and for examples of people on these threads advocating teaching atheism as part of science classes. You've provided neither.
You could try producing some evidence that supports your position or claims. For the sake of variety if nothing else.
That does appear to be the case. I'll just have to take comfort in knowing that my position is the only one supported by evidence and which doesn't require ignoring all the contrary information.

I'm glad you are comfortable with your faith.

[Lone Wolf8634]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

If Atheism is not being taught in the public school ciriculum can someone please explain why the National Associatian of Biology Teachers released this statement in 1995:

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification."

Clearly this is an Atheist position, e.g. Atheism is being taught in the public school system.

And just as clearly, you continue to misrepresent Atheism to bolster your arguments. Yet again I remind you that Atheism itself holds no position on evolution, That Big Ol' Bang or the origin of life.

Atheism simply rejects YOUR explanation due to lack of credible evidence. Very important concept here, do try to keep it mind the next time you go assigning Atheism "clear postitions".

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised (No one has ever found credible evidence of someone, or something supervising, directing or in anyway affecting the outcome of evolution, lest it be our own experiments in selective breeding or genetics), impersonal (last I checked, survival of the fittest was pretty impersonal), unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification."

Obviously these statements are true in their context. Whats the problem?

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf8634

And just as clearly, you continue to misrepresent Atheism to bolster your arguments. Yet again I remind you that Atheism itself holds no position on evolution, That Big Ol' Bang or the origin of life.

Atheism simply rejects YOUR explanation due to lack of credible evidence. Very important concept here, do try to keep it mind the next time you go assigning Atheism "clear postitions".

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised (No one has ever found credible evidence of someone, or something supervising, directing or in anyway affecting the outcome of evolution, lest it be our own experiments in selective breeding or genetics), impersonal (last I checked, survival of the fittest was pretty impersonal), unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification."

Obviously these statements are true in their context. Whats the problem?

I am glad you are zealous for your religion, however it is a a religion none-the-less and it has no place in the public school system.

[Lone Wolf8634]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

I am glad you are zealous for your religion, however it is a a religion none-the-less and it has no place in the public school system.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf8634

And just as clearly, you continue to misrepresent Atheism to bolster your arguments. Yet again I remind you that Atheism itself holds no position on evolution, That Big Ol' Bang or the origin of life.

Atheism simply rejects YOUR explanation due to lack of credible evidence. Very important concept here, do try to keep it mind the next time you go assigning Atheism "clear postitions".

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised (No one has ever found credible evidence of someone, or something supervising, directing or in anyway affecting the outcome of evolution, lest it be our own experiments in selective breeding or genetics), impersonal (last I checked, survival of the fittest was pretty impersonal), unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification."

Obviously these statements are true in their context. Whats the problem?

His beliefs just reject your explanation. So there, you're even.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf8634

He's right, there are atheist churches, and we all know that there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.

[Lone Wolf8634]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

His beliefs just reject your explanation. So there, you're even.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

He's right, there are atheist churches, and we all know that there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

If Atheism is not being taught in the public school ciriculum can someone please explain why the National Associatian of Biology Teachers released this statement in 1995:

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification."

Clearly this is an Atheist position, e.g. Atheism is being taught in the public school system.

No, it is a scientific position. Without evidence of someone or something supervising the process, the wording is completely reasonable. It should also be noted that the words which so upset you were removed from the statement two years later. The group's current position statement can be found here.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I'm glad you are comfortable with your faith.

I'm sorry you're so completely incapable of comprehending relatively simple words on a page.

[Brucev]

Re: OP. Let the material to be taught be determined in the exact same manner as would be the case for any other subject... i.e., teach the concept. As to hostile political/philosophical agenda, it would obviously be precluded. This would of course fry the grits of some. Tough.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

I'm sorry you're so completely incapable of comprehending relatively simple words on a page.

Are you always so angry and hostile with people that simply disagree with you in real life, or do you just show that side of yourself here?

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Well, since you need someone to hold your hand and walk you though all three pages...

It's amusing how petulant you get when asked to support your assertions.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Guess you could now claim that you didn't understand what you were posting, or didn't mean to make it look like you were offering evidence that no god exists, but you did.

Nope, but I will claim you either don't understand what I posted, or, more likely, are pretending to not understand.

Saying "'There is evidence things can "just happen"'" (or any of those other claims) is not a claim that "things can just happen" is evidence of the nonexistence of deities; all it is evidence of is that things can just happen. Neither is it a claim of knowledge about how the Universe began; it is merely evidence of one possibility. Which means claiming "there is no evidence either way" is incorrect.

And saying "there is no evidence of deities" isn't a claim that deities don't exist; all it is saying is that IF such evidence exists, it has yet to be presented.