Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → *Pulls on flame proof gauntlets...*
*Pulls on flame proof gauntlets...*
2006-06-21, 12:12 PM #1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5098608.stm

Scientists unite to stop the teaching of "faith-based" subject matter, such as the age of the Earth and creationism.

Funky.
2006-06-21, 12:14 PM #2
damn straight, faith based teaching belongs in RE classes, where everything is open to question.

Science classes should be for science, easy as that.

Calling God "some invisible all-powerful force" instead of "God" does not make it instantly scientific.
2006-06-21, 12:15 PM #3
Aye, if you want faith based teachings, do it in Sunday School / RE and not in science lessons.
2006-06-21, 12:22 PM #4
Originally posted by Martyn:
Aye, if you want faith based teachings, do it in Sunday School / RE and not in science lessons.


Yup.

You know, it feels neat to post on a thread like this when all the crap is missing. Yay!
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2006-06-21, 12:25 PM #5
Quote:
Yes, there should be "evidence-based" teaching is schools to show how little true evidence there is for Darwinian evolution theory. Most of evolutionary theory is clearly faith-based.
-Hugh Mai, London, Ontario, Canada

i give up on canada. maybe im just tired, but did that not make any sense?
2006-06-21, 12:26 PM #6
The process of the Scientific Method is designed in a way that only absolute facts are presented. In the Scientific Method, ID is not conssidered a theory at all: It is an observation. "Doesn't it seem likely that such specific creations would be the work of a higher being?" Through the Scientific Method, it would be shown that ID is an unlikely, but still possible theory. Evolution, however, is factual, and passes the Scientific Method completely. What should we teach then? The truth. Science is not an oponent of religion anymore than math is.
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2006-06-21, 12:27 PM #7
Calculus makes baby Jesus cry.
Hey, Blue? I'm loving the things you do. From the very first time, the fight you fight for will always be mine.
2006-06-21, 12:27 PM #8
Wouldn't it be cool if there really were flame-proof gauntlets?
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2006-06-21, 12:31 PM #9
?
Attachment: 12553/oven-mitts-lg.jpg (34,191 bytes)
2006-06-21, 12:31 PM #10
Originally posted by Freelancer:
Wouldn't it be cool if there really were flame-proof gauntlets?


Oven-mitts.

....wow. almost at the same time.
"Those ****ing amateurs... You left your dog, you idiots!"
2006-06-21, 12:32 PM #11
Oven mitts are heat-resistant, but not flame-proof.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2006-06-21, 12:35 PM #12
and that was a joke but you're still being pedantic.
2006-06-21, 12:35 PM #13
They were asbestos-lined.
Hey, Blue? I'm loving the things you do. From the very first time, the fight you fight for will always be mine.
2006-06-21, 12:56 PM #14
Quick question, I don't want to flame at all. What say of abiogenesis? Maybe Frank Miller's experimental results could be shown in a class, but can abiogenesis and similar theories be taught in a science class? There is no evidence that it happened, just speculation on how it life could have started and then theorizing from there right?
"The only crime I'm guilty of is love [of china]"
- Ruthven
me clan me mod
2006-06-21, 1:37 PM #15
You should be able to discuss it, but it should never be taught as fact. That's the key difference :)
2006-06-21, 1:57 PM #16
Originally posted by Freelancer:
Oven mitts are heat-resistant, but not flame-proof.

Nobody really cares.

But this is good. I read up on L Ron Hubbard yesterday, and just his bio (from wikipedia) makes me want to cry. How could people believe this guy, honestly?
D E A T H
2006-06-21, 2:06 PM #17
Oh that Wikipedia article is hilarious! I spent hours a week or two ago sifting through all that! My particular favourite was the fact that Hubbard's wife spent time in Federal prison for trying to set someone up for a hit and run (IIRC).
2006-06-22, 11:16 AM #18
http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=790
Cordially,
Lord Tiberius Grismath
1473 for '1337' posts.
2006-06-22, 11:19 AM #19
Originally posted by Martyn:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5098608.stm

Scientists unite to stop the teaching of "faith-based" subject matter, such as the age of the Earth and creationism.

Funky.


Bah I thought your post would be about scientists inventing a fire proof suit for firemen :( I am now sad.
Was cheated out of lions by happydud
Was cheated out of marriage by sugarless
2006-06-22, 11:57 AM #20
[QUOTE=Mr. Stafford]damn straight, faith based teaching belongs in RE classes, where everything is open to question.

Science classes should be for science, easy as that.

Calling God "some invisible all-powerful force" instead of "God" does not make it instantly scientific.[/QUOTE]

If only the religious zealots could think the same way.
Pissed Off?
2006-06-22, 12:48 PM #21
[quote=Morel Orel's Doughy]"Orel! You know you're not spose to think when it comes to faith!"[/quote]

<3 that show
2006-06-22, 1:20 PM #22
Originally posted by JediKirby:
The process of the Scientific Method is designed in a way that only absolute facts are presented. In the Scientific Method, ID is not conssidered a theory at all: It is an observation.


What are these "observations" though?
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2006-06-22, 1:33 PM #23
Originally posted by JediKirby:
The process of the Scientific Method is designed in a way that only absolute facts are presented. In the Scientific Method, ID is not conssidered a theory at all: It is an observation. "Doesn't it seem likely that such specific creations would be the work of a higher being?" Through the Scientific Method, it would be shown that ID is an unlikely, but still possible theory. Evolution, however, is factual, and passes the Scientific Method completely. What should we teach then? The truth. Science is not an oponent of religion anymore than math is.



Your idea of fact ain't too stringent.
2006-06-22, 1:35 PM #24
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Your idea of fact ain't too stringent.

Says a Christian who probably buys into the Scientology tripe (yes, it is tripe. If you don't believe me, read the bio of L Ron Hubbard then review Scientology. It's all stupid and non-factual and was only made in the first place for Hubbard to get money.). Hrmm...not biased at all, eh?
D E A T H
2006-06-22, 3:25 PM #25
Now that's what I'm talking about!
2006-06-22, 3:43 PM #26
Originally posted by Martyn:
Aye, if you want faith based teachings, do it in Sunday School / RE and not in science lessons.
ditto
People of our generation should not be subjected to mornings.

Rbots

↑ Up to the top!