UK bans teaching of creationism in any school that receives public funding

originally posted by: boymonkey74
About time really.
We will reap the rewards in a generation when we have clued up kids without the nonsense in their heads.

Oh please tell us what rewards will be reaped.

The nonsense of evolution is just as much provable as the Santa, but somehow you believe in your mind it makes sense.

Swapping one religious myth for another, is actually MORE stupid.

No truth can be found in ANY of the systems telling us what is, has, and will happen....every one of them comes from the SAME.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Difference is evidence you can choose to.be ignorant towards the evidence but our kids will not now.
I suggest a foundation study class in science maybe you will learn something.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Oh please tell us what rewards will be reaped.

The nonsense of evolution is just as much provable as the Santa, but somehow you believe in your mind it makes sense.

Swapping one religious myth for another, is actually MORE stupid.

No truth can be found in ANY of the systems telling us what is, has, and will happen....every one of them comes from the SAME.

Overusing antibiotics makes bacteria evolve resistance to said antibiotics. Misuse of pesticides produces stronger insects impervious to said pesticides. Evolution in action.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Because that would be a waste of time...we wish to teach them facts and actual science not made up fantasies.

Let us know what these facts are....you seem completely unaware that NO FACTS exist.

Try and think clearly about this, as we can see you need direction.

EVOLUTION THEORY tells us NOTHING and accomplishes its true goal, to replace the RELIGIOUS myths with OTHER myths.

WOW the programming is almost fully complete now, moved to a new paradigm of people who think they know something as fact when none can be provided.

Something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, called the TRUTH is being hidden across the board....

originally posted by: combinatorics

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Oh please tell us what rewards will be reaped.

The nonsense of evolution is just as much provable as the Santa, but somehow you believe in your mind it makes sense.

Swapping one religious myth for another, is actually MORE stupid.

No truth can be found in ANY of the systems telling us what is, has, and will happen....every one of them comes from the SAME.

Overusing antibiotics makes bacteria evolve resistance to said antibiotics. Misuse of pesticides produces stronger insects impervious to said pesticides. Evolution in action.

Natural selection pressures in action. A small resistant portion of the existing population blooms because it no longer has to compete for resources with its less fortunate cousins.

Evolution includes mutation and speciation, neither of which are present in the examples you have cited.

So your examples are not Evolution in action.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Right, what evidence.

Evidence of WHAT.

Theories are old for me, passé, give me the TRUTH, or go away.

Evolution is a theory for a good reason, it is not INTERESTED in finding out the causes of anything.

It only looks at possible changes, but not very good even at that.

It is absurd and JUST AS STUPID to believe that Evolution has you anywhere closer to reality than Creationism.

Funny how people as yourselves believe you have to fall into one of these 2 camps.

I belong to neither.

And, I choose to actually look unhindered by every moronic and diabolic force around, for the actual roots of everything.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Another who doesn't understand the difference between scientific theory and the classical meaning of theory.
Many threads on the subject on ats all with tons of evidence or like I have said take a biology class.

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: Sremmos80

He also created this vast, vast universe with billions upon billions of stars and planets but really only cares about one.

And you know this how, exactly?

Because you and I are here.....There is a reason the universe is so vast, we just don't understand the meaning of that yet.

They don't realize it, but they are looking at the Universe through the jaded eyes of the very religions they claim to not follow, and think because you think a GOD can exist that makes you crazier than them.

They are unable to see,, that the evidence they are looking at actually tells them nothing of any value, about where anything comes from,, they cannot fathom, that they are actually JUST AS LIMITED as those they claim they are better than...when in fact they are just a new name on making sure NOONE knows.

How to break things free from the power structure that has them trapped believing they are free when they never were ??

Make them Want to stay in it!!

I personally think the GOD theory is even very limiting, and does not answer enough, but I look at the new religion presented as Evolution, and see that nothing has actually been gained, in fact the ability to STOP the truth from being seen is even more powerful than before!!

Again, every being on the Earth, being controlled by these ideologies, whether they know it or not, makes no difference, and THAT is a FACT.

originally posted by: chr0naut



Natural selection pressures in action. A small resistant portion of the existing population blooms because it no longer has to compete for resources with its less fortunate cousins.

Evolution includes mutation and speciation, neither of which are present in the examples you have cited.

So your examples are not Evolution in action.

Antibiotic resistance is evolution by natural selection. Most bacteria are destroyed by antibiotics, but a few bacteria survive simply because they carry an antibiotic resistant gene. In turn, this gene is passed onto their offspring.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ISawItFirst

No scientific theory is 100% proven. Even gravity. Why aren't you demanding unreasonable tests for things like Cell Theory or the Theory of Gravity? After all, they are all "just theories" too.

Ya because those theories are so similar in scope.

The fact is, the areas proper research could go into, in this field if left to ACTUALLY unfettered be looked for, renders everything people knew about useless within short periods of time.

This means, that the entire process of searching for how things came to be , is FLAWED.

The scientific books are rewritten even faster than the Bible and everyone chimes in that it is just normal and understandable progression.

However, this does not change the fact, that without doubt, a 100 years from now, or far less, things will be presented that will make what you guys believe to be fact NOW, and "ON THE RIGHT TRACK" seem more ridiculous than every fairy tale and myth presented so far, COMBINED.

Face it, Face the facts, that you actually have ZERO evidence for how things came to be, and face that the reason WHY, is because it is NOT being LOOKED FOR, and PURPOSEFULLY SO, STEERED AWAY.

And tell us again , how it doesn't matter that blanks are left in the theories, ya, lets just leave the computer code to figure it all out for itself, we will be fine with everlasting STUPIDITY.

BOLLOCKS on your SCIENCE, it has less energy than a grain of sand hidden under the ocean.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

Let us know what these facts are....you seem completely unaware that NO FACTS exist.

Try and think clearly about this, as we can see you need direction.

EVOLUTION THEORY tells us NOTHING and accomplishes its true goal, to replace the RELIGIOUS myths with OTHER myths.

WOW the programming is almost fully complete now, moved to a new paradigm of people who think they know something as fact when none can be provided.

Something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, called the TRUTH is being hidden across the board....

You main argument seems to be that Evolution is a theory. Consider the Theory of Real Numbers. In it, we can show that the irrational numbers exist. Should we dismiss it out of hand because Theory of Real Numbers is theory?

originally posted by: combinatorics

originally posted by: chr0naut



Natural selection pressures in action. A small resistant portion of the existing population blooms because it no longer has to compete for resources with its less fortunate cousins.

Evolution includes mutation and speciation, neither of which are present in the examples you have cited.

So your examples are not Evolution in action.

Antibiotic resistance is evolution by natural selection. Most bacteria are destroyed by antibiotics, but a few bacteria survive simply because they carry an antibiotic resistant gene. In turn, this gene is passed onto their offspring.

But nothing actually evolved.

If there is a cull of a portion of a population, it is not evolution.

Again and again people hold up a single mechanism that could possibly be part of an evolutionary process and say look, evolution is proved. It actually doesn't prove anything but that the person is willing to overlook the weakness of their argument due to the strength of their belief.

I'm not saying that there aren't any examples of evolution, just that they are actually very rare due to the excessively long time-frames involved and the intensiveness of observation required to remove other possibilities.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: ISawItFirst

What you're asking is for someone on a conspiracy forum to turn a scientific theory into a scientific proof within the span of a few minutes, or hours if you're particularly patient. Something that has not been possible for the most brilliant minds in science working together to prove the theory for hundreds of years.

Then you puff out your chest and declare victory when this relatively average person predictably cannot do it.

I know your game, and it's the same game all the creationists argue. "Well it's just a THEORY." (nevermind that half of these dimwits don't even know the difference between a classical theory and scientific theory)

Ya we forgot, we should praise and worship the "system" that will eventually lead us to where we need to go.

Your game is, you do not know when you are being had since you are unknowingly, subconsciously already surrendered to the coolness of never getting to the truth.

Not in the U.K., but I thought it was relevant to the general timbre of this thread.

Professor Paul Morris gives scathing review of Bible in Schools material

Victoria University professor of religious studies Paul Morris said the syllabuses used by the Churches Education Commission, which runs religious classes in about 600 state schools, taught religion, rather than taught about religion.........He said CEC's teaching materials were "at odds with the diverse demography of our country where nationally a minority are Christian and an even smaller minority are conservative evangelical Christians"......CEC's use of prayers to God and Jesus were "inappropriate and likely objectionable" to secular, non-Christian and non-evangelical parents and students, he said.

The prominence given to Christian scriptures, heroes and practices were not suitable for non-Christian students.

While this is not religion taught in science classes, it is still an insidious use of Christianity at the expense of other religions. For the record, New Zealand was not founded on Christianity and is becoming increasingly diverse.

Morris said knowledge of Christian traditions and churches in was essential to appreciate New Zealand's artistic, musical, legal, moral and political traditions.

However, it was equally important for children to learn about different religions in order to enhance their understanding of geo-politics , with the Asia-Pacific region being one of New Zealand's closest neighbours and trading partners, to learn about the increasing number of non-Christian New Zealanders.

"We simply cannot make sense of the world we live in without understanding something of its religious dynamics, and, as such, religious studies should indeed be a vital part of our education as contemporary global citizens."

Religious studies, as taught in United Kingdom schools, also often included non-religious viewpoints, he said.

I agree. Like it or not, religion has played a large role in Society, for better and for worse.

Comparative religion would seem an appropriate path to take in an increasingly diverse society, but certainly not in a science class.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: ISawItFirst

What you're asking is for someone on a conspiracy forum to turn a scientific theory into a scientific proof within the span of a few minutes, or hours if you're particularly patient. Something that has not been possible for the most brilliant minds in science working together to prove the theory for hundreds of years.

Then you puff out your chest and declare victory when this relatively average person predictably cannot do it.

I know your game, and it's the same game all the creationists argue. "Well it's just a THEORY." (nevermind that half of these dimwits don't even know the difference between a classical theory and scientific theory)

Ya we forgot, we should praise and worship the "system" that will eventually lead us to where we need to go.

Your game is, you do not know when you are being had since you are unknowingly, subconsciously already surrendered to the coolness of never getting to the truth.

I'm interested in your theory, as you have completely disassociated yourself from both science and religion. What other explanation do you have? You seem to be skirting around it, but not actually saying it.

a reply to: aorAki

In America, the number of people who believed that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process" (Gallup poll, 2007) is only 14%. That puts them in a minority.

Professor Paul Morris's argument on the basis of minority is invalid outside of New Zealand. 70.6% of Americans (Pew Forum Survey, 2015) and 43% of New Zealanders (2013 census) profess Christianity.

Considering the diversity of faiths, this IS a majority.

originally posted by: chr0naut

But nothing actually evolved.

Yes, it did. Successive generations inherited certain bio traits that made them resistant to antibiotics. It's by definition. No faith necessary.

NVM

a reply to: chr0naut


The old 'might is right' argument (weight of numbers) does not mean it is correct.

Teaching comparative religion outside of the science curriculum would be appropriate. teaching religion inside the science curriculum is not appropriate.

originally posted by: combinatorics

originally posted by: chr0naut

But nothing actually evolved.

Yes, it did. Successive generations inherited certain bio traits that made them resistant to antibiotics. It's by definition. No faith necessary.

But they aren't new species, just a subset of the same species with different (and preexisting) traits.

You are confusing Mendellian genetics and population statistics with evolution.