xLuKeYx
-
Posts
149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by xLuKeYx
-
-
[spoiler][quote name='MajikDan' timestamp='1366946696' post='307320']
I'm a little late to the party, but I'd just like to point out that science uses the word "theory" much differently than it is used in everyday conversation.
When a normal person says "theory" they mean "it's an idea or possible explanation." A scientist would use the word "hypothesis" for such a thing.
When a scientist uses the word "theory," it means "a hypothesis that has been tested extensively and survived all the crap we can sling at it, and thus is accepted fairly widely."
That was a little off topic, but this will rectify that a bit. Religious ideas, whether they be accepted widely or not, have no place in a science classroom. Science about teaching a method of thinking. Propose an idea, test it extensively, and only when it has stood more tests by more people than could allow it to logically be concluded false do you accept it. Religion is about believing because of faith. You cannot mix the two and claim that both are tried and tested ideas.
In regards to the OP picture, I'm skeptical. Never before have I seen a public school teach religion so blatantly branded as science, and I went to high school in a rural town in Missouri.
[/quote]
[quote name='Orangeslash' timestamp='1366948046' post='307345']
The idea behind it isn't wrong, since it's a private school. The way they're presenting it and it is being taught is.
[/quote]
[quote name='Quesoman' timestamp='1366948098' post='307347']
I'm sorry if this appears to be a tad agressive, but religion applies only if you believe in that particular religion. It's interesting to learn about some of the teachings of the Bible, such as creationism. However if you don't believe it is the same as studying ancient Roman or Greek mythology.
The thing about biology and science is that they apply wether you believe in them or not. You simply can't stop 'believing in gravity' and start to fly. You can try, but I don't expect good results for you. Gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory. That doesn't make them invalid by any means. They have been proved, they are not at the same level as religious beliefs.
If you're going to teach creationism, teach it alongside the Buddhist theory of reincarnation, together with the Hinduism's theory of the 'golden embryo' in history class, or in a separate religious studies class, which should be optional because many parents might want to teach their kids their own religion, ect...
You can't not believe in gravity, or evolution. They are theories that have real effects in our lives, we see their influence every day.
EDIT: It doesn't matter if it's a private school or not, if it's found out to be teaching in science class, as an example, that blood is made of little men, not cells, that school should be intervened by the authorities for teaching bad science. At the very least called to attention. It should be a scandal for crying out loud!
[/quote][/spoiler]
Call it a little off topic if you will, but I've run out of positive likes, so have been unable to give you any. Safe to say, I agree with you. -
[quote name='Orangeslash' timestamp='1366947627' post='307336']
Probably a private catholic school, in which case this is to be expected. Parents choose for their kids to go there, and to receive teaching like this. Agree or not, that's what their 30k a year pays for.
[/quote]
It's both scary and a little sad though, that this is their idea of education.
I'd like to think I'm correct in assuming that reasonably minded people on both sides of any religious debate would be able to see that this is wrong. -
[quote name='MajikDan' timestamp='1366946696' post='307320']
I'm a little late to the party, but I'd just like to point out that science uses the word "theory" much differently than it is used in everyday conversation.
When a normal person says "theory" they mean "it's an idea or possible explanation." A scientist would use the word "hypothesis" for such a thing.
When a scientist uses the word "theory," it means "a hypothesis that has been tested extensively and survived all the crap we can sling at it, and thus is accepted fairly widely."
That was a little off topic, but this will rectify that a bit. Religious ideas, whether they be accepted widely or not, have no place in a science classroom. Science about teaching a method of thinking. Propose an idea, test it extensively, and only when it has stood more tests by more people than could allow it to logically be concluded false do you accept it. Religion is about believing because of faith. You cannot mix the two and claim that both are tried and tested ideas.
In regards to the OP picture, I'm skeptical. Never before have I seen a public school teach religion so blatantly branded as science, and I went to high school in a rural town in Missouri.
[/quote]
According to the source, this was a test given in a private school. I can see where you're scepticism comes from though, I'm not really sure either. -
[quote name='Orangeslash' timestamp='1366944055' post='307262']
That means Creationism should be taught too.
[/quote]
I agree and somewhat disagree. It should be taught, but only in the appropriate class, which would be religion, since it is a religious theory.
[quote name='Emlee' timestamp='1366944151' post='307266']
Didn't want to cause anything but felt the need to interject a bit.
Nothing is ever [i]proven[/i] in science, things just [i]failed to be rejected[/i].
For example, Evolution has [i]failed to be rejected[/i] during peer evaluation/journal evaluation so often that it is the most widely accept scientific [u]theory [/u]at this moment.
Nothing is static in scientific theory though.
Also wanted to add I took a Buddhism Class during my undergrad and it was one of my favorite classes ever. It was taught by a man whom never revealed his beliefs, and in such a manner that you could think he was Buddhist one day and think he was a historian the next. Nothing wrong with this type of education anywhere if you choose to take it, in my opinion
I won't state my stance on religion but will say [i]to each their own[/i].
When I was a child I was taught things that I later grew up to understand as wrong/untrue, no education is perfect.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what it is about staff, but you're opinions and statements are always bang on, no matter what side of the debate you find yourself on. This, a million times over.
[quote name='ArmisticeAcropolis' timestamp='1366944197' post='307269']
Evolution should be taught in science class because it is a product and aspect of science.
Creationism should be taught in a church or in sunday school because it is a product and aspect of organized religion.
[/quote]
I agree, but I believe creationism should also be taught in any (Christianity based) religious class also.
[quote name='Kelarr' timestamp='1366944323' post='307270']
You're forced to take a science class in high school though. Does this mean you should be forced to take a religious class as well.
[/quote]
Some people are. I was sent to a Roman Catholic school as a child with absolutely no say in the matter.
[quote name='Govictory' timestamp='1366944342' post='307271']
then shouldn't EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC EXPERMENT BE TAUGHT in science class?
[/quote]
No, but nobody is saying every single aspect of religion should be taught in religious classes, or in church. [b]BUT[/b], science should only be taught in science class, and religion should only be taught in a religious class. -
[quote name='ArmisticeAcropolis' timestamp='1366943920' post='307259']
This is where I disagree. Evolution not being taught is ridiculous in my opinion.
People should be given the opportunity to choose.
[/quote]
That's what I meant, it should be taught as theory, not fact. -
[quote name='Senile' timestamp='1366943471' post='307251']
The literal meaning of "Atheism" is "A", meaning without, and "Theism" meaning "God". Therefore, "Atheism" literally means "Without God", which can be interpreted as "A lack of belief in a God". Religious/Spiritual beliefs are irrelevant, atheism deals solely with the lack of belief in god, anything other than that is just personal interpretation.
Also, comparing a scientific theory to simply a belief is nonsensical. A majority of the field of science is "Theory", simply because it is impossible, with the exception of laws (Which are unique in their own way, and even then, some laws begin to break down in certain scenarios) to know with absolute certainty if a concept is correct, simply because there might be some other slightly better explanation we either do not have enough proof of yet or simply have not/could not have conceived.
I agree with this entirely. It's a shame any mention of any religious beliefs at all in school is so prone to instant legal trouble, I feel it'd be excellent for High Schools to offer courses teaching general information of the belief systems and subdivisions of various major religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.; Especially considering how many people in the U.S. (At least in my experience) know very little about religions that aren't Christianity.
[/quote]
My point was that a theory still requires an element of belief, perhaps I should have been more clear. -
[quote name='ProfessorElderberry' timestamp='1366943116' post='307247']
I am conflicted when it comes to the question you posed OP...
Firstly, I would say that teaching things which are known to be untrue is ethically wrong and historically can lead to some pretty scary things... The problem in this case, is not everyone is able to agree what is known to be untrue (be it for any number of reasons), and none as so much as that of religious dogma.
On the other hand, if we taught only what we knew to be 'the truth' in school, then school would be over just as soon as it started... for no matter the discipline... for the one thing that all smart people know is how little we actually know about anything (and just when we think we start figure it out, we get thrown a curveball that negates EVERYTHING...).
I would say OP's picture is sad, but not that atypical... remember, elementary and high school is just free daycare after all, so things like 'facts' really are not [i]that [/i]important... (I weep for the future...)
[/quote]
Anything not proven to be true shouldn't be taught in a science class without a warning. This goes for evolution too, since that as yet has not been 100% proven. -
[quote name='Quesoman' timestamp='1366942675' post='307232']
[i]I[/i] think he's just trolling. For me atheism is the lack of any sort of belief, wether religious or spiritual. No ghosts, gods, zodiacs, superstitions or occult mumbo-jumbo of any kind allowed.
And religion doesn't come with a warning, they teach is as fact, which again is [i]fine[/i] if you make it optional and [u]not[/u] in science class, for the love of God!
[/quote]
Nah, I really don't think he is trolling, actually, and he has a point. I'm with him, to be honest, anything not entirely proven shouldn't be taught in school without a warning that it is only a theory.
And atheism by it's very definition is a lack of only religious beliefs. -
[quote name='Senile' timestamp='1366942233' post='307221']
I seriously have no idea what an "Atheist belief" is supposed to be, other than a teacher just yelling "HEY KIDS, GOD ISN'T REAL!" (Which would probably result in a lawsuit and the removal of the teacher due to a concerned parent), so elaboration on what that means would be appreciated.
[/quote]
[quote name='Quesoman' timestamp='1366942241' post='307222']
Niet, because atheism literally means 'lack of beliefs'.
Oops, I got fished
[/quote]
He's talking about evolution (I think, anyway). As much as we like to think otherwise, it is still just a theory and therefore, a belief. Atheism is Anti-Theism, or the lack of religious beliefs, not the lack of belief altogether.
My point was, why should one belief come with a warning, and not the other? -
[quote name='Orangeslash' timestamp='1366941717' post='307208']
I imagine there's just as many teachers teaching atheist beliefs as fact.
[/quote]
The difference being, I was given a warning with evolution, told "this might not be true, this is just a theory", by my biology teacher, whereas my religion teacher taught me everything in the bible was a fact.
Given the choice, I know who I'd rather believe, even if just on the grounds of full disclosure. -
[quote name='ArmisticeAcropolis' timestamp='1366941362' post='307203']
I'm sorry but a thread like this is going to spark the religion debate despite how many times you try to suppress it.
That being said, this test is ridiculous and I hope it's a joke.
[/quote]
People [b]CAN[/b] be reasonable here though, there has been a pretty decent religion thread here before, where very little flaming went on. If they can be reasonable then, I see no reason why they can't now. What with the new rules in OT as well, people need to be careful. -
[quote name='Soothe' timestamp='1366940689' post='307189']
considering it came from leddit, i don't really think the picture is real. just fodder for the /r/athiesm anti-religion circlejerk. it's not that hard to create a fake test and use bad handwriting.
[spoiler]or maybe i'm just clinging on to hope[/spoiler]
[/quote]
I hope beyond all hope that this is not true. Sadly, I've seen something close to this for my own eyes.
[quote name='Quesoman' timestamp='1366940702' post='307190']
Don't sweat it, it's not like I made it easy to read. I reread it and it does seem like I'm adding fuel to the fire.
I'm very passionate about this topic, gets me to burst several blood vessels.
Isn't the Pope not recognised by these extremists? I'm assuming they're protestants.
Aren't we all?
[/quote]
It's was the bit where you said it "[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]has no scientific value at all". I thought you were talking in general, although I now realise you meant "...to be taught in a science class".[/font][/color] -
[quote name='Elkaroo' timestamp='1366940176' post='307178']
It took me like 40 minutes to realize what Job 40 was.
[/quote]
inb4 people ask you to tell them.
Also, it's pronounced "Jobe", for anyone wondering, that might help. -
[quote name='Quesoman' timestamp='1366939836' post='307171']
Well, 'confirmed' is a very loose term over the internet. I saw the sources, and I hope it's fake, because I fear the truth.
I wasn't debating religion, teach creationism if you so please, but in a 'religious studies' class, not in science class. You can argue however much you want and no matter what side of the debate you're on, religion and beliefs are [u]not[/u] science, and should not be taught as such.
You can think it true, but that does not mean you can teach it in science class. That is against the principles of science, which is based on empirical proof and repetition of experiments to confirm validity.
[/quote]
Yeah, I see what you meant now. It's late, I misread it, apologies. -
[quote name='Quesoman' timestamp='1366939218' post='307155']
I'm a bit skeptic on all thse 'tests' that keep cropping up, but there is a strong religious fanatism and zealotry in certain areas of the US (and all over the world). Consider it equivalent to the teachings given in some schools of the middle east.
Back on the topic of creationism, it is ridiculous to teach it in schools, ovbiously, it has no scientific value at all. The problem is getting rid of idiots in the government, and that's not happening any time soon.
[/quote]
I saw it a while ago, but turns out it's actually been confirmed by a very concerned parent.
And again, please, debating religion nearly always turns into a flame war, with one side screaming "proof" and the other side screaming "faith". There is never a winner, and there is nothing to be gained by going down that route. -
[quote name='CipherWeston' timestamp='1366939032' post='307147']
Ah South Carolina... we're a unique type of state down here...
[spoiler]Seriously, rednecks everywhere.[spoiler]I don't have a problem with rednecks, I've grown up with them all my life.[/spoiler][/spoiler]
Anyways, I'm about 99% sure this test was handed out in a private school, because in 4th grade I was never taught any of this shit in public school.
[/quote]
According to the link I posted, it was. Which makes it even scarier, in my eyes; parents are paying for their kids to be educated whatever the teacher believes that day. -
I'm sure there will be a number of you who will have some recollection of my standpoint on religion from a thread a while ago, but the whole purpose of this post is not to debate the validity of religion, or to be more precise: creationism, more to look at the way in which religion is being passed off as science in American schools.
The following "science" test was handed out in South Carolina:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/TYpLJpOh.jpg[/img]
To teach religion in schools is fine, but to pass off your own beliefs as fact, as [b]SCIENCE[/b], to a [b]CHILD[/b], no less, is absolutely disgusting.
I also feel the need to point out that Pope John Paul II himself accepted that the evidence for evolution was overwhelming, and it is indeed a fact. Someone should inform this school in South Carolina the definition of the phrase "Papal Infallibility".
Source: [url="http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/sciencetest.asp"]http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/sciencetest.asp[/url] -
[quote name='Kelarr' timestamp='1366934759' post='307048']
I enjoy the taste of spinach, broccoli, carrots and other vegetables. Namely because I'm not 7 anymore.
[/quote]
Yes, but in the context of an omelette I am aware how strange it sounds to include foods like those, that was my point... -
[quote name='Quesoman' timestamp='1366934357' post='307033']
I have never done the first recipe Luke suggests, but meringues YES
[/quote]
Knowing how much the Spanish go bat shit crazy for their omelettes, I highly recommend you try it one day. Especially if you add the ingredients from a traditional Spanish omelette and lots more, such as spinach, finely chopped broccoli, diced carrot etc (I know, I know, it sounds like it tastes awful, but trust me, it's awesome). -
Twinkies are fucking awful, it has to be said. If there's one thing I've always wanted to do with a slightly stale cake, it's fill it full of flavourless white goo.
- SkemooSwagg and Munya
-
2
-
1) Take 2-3 eggs and separate the whites and the yolks.
2) Put the yolks to one side (for now, DON'T throw them away) and season the whites to taste. Add any spices that may take your fancy that day.
3) Using an electric whisk, whisk the whites until firm, firm enough that you can hold the bowl upside down without losing any of it's contents (this can also be done with a hand whisk/fork, if you have a few hours to spare).
4) Add a knob of butter to a frying pan on a low to medium heat and add the egg whites, spreading them in the pan like an omelette.
5) Once omelette is firm and almost cooked all the way through, when you would normally flip it, don't. Instead, remove the frying pan from the heat and pour the yolks over the top of the omelette (you can add other ingredients to the yolks also, cheese and ham would be a personal favourite of mine).
6) Place frying pan under a grill on a medium to high heat, and leave until the omelette is cooked thoroughly all the way through and the yolk has started to brown.
And there you have it, you have successfully cooked a soufflé omelette. Takes very little time to prepare and cook (if you have an electric whisk), very difficult to get wrong and tastes surprisingly different to a regular omelette. If you're feeling REALLY adventurous though, you could always add the ingredients from Quesoman's Spanish omelette to the whites, for a bit of extra flavour.
EDIT: And of course, you could always mix it up a bit and make meringues for desert one day. (Egg whites, sugar, bake for a bit) -
[Hasty] Starmie Lv. 50(28-29/28-29/0-3/25-26/19-20/31) of any interest to you?
-
Chill Songs
in Trash
Light Years - Pearl Jam
Harvest - Opeth
I'll add more when I remember. -
[quote name='kloneman' timestamp='1366836444' post='304940']
I heard Suarez had been banned for 10 matches after biting another player.
[/quote]
I shit you not, Mike Tyson has started following him on twitter. You couldn't even write this stuff...
The single scariest thing I have ever seen, without doubt (Warning: Religious content and probable discussion inside)
in Trash
Posted
[quote name='Darkshade' timestamp='1366998561' post='308096']
Because the theory of evolution is virtually scientific fact, it is not okay to teach a child a story with no evidence behind it at all, in comparison to a theory which has been studied and tested numerous times, with undeniable handfuls of evidence pointing to it being true.
It is not a theory in the sense of "I have an idea, it might have been this way"
It's a theory in that we literally cannot know what happened, however this particular theory is only that step away from becoming true.
It is pretty much fact.
It is important to teach children truths and evidence, and it is not okay to raise them based on no evidence.
Now before anybody jumps at me for being anti religious, I would have no problems at all if creationism was taught as fact - if it [b]was [/b]fact.
But it isn't, and far from it, and thus it needs to stay out of the education system under the topic of science.
[b]However, in the UK, we have the topic of science, and we have another subject called 'Religious Studies'.
Here, children are taught what people believe, but it isn't taught as fact.
It's taught as a 'Some Christians believe this'
Alongside this particular subject (and of course science), the theory of natural selection is taught.[/b]
If the children want to believe this also, then they are welcome to do so.
The topic of Religious Studies works very well if the teacher stands on mutual ground, and doesn't teach things one way or the other.
All they need to do, is sit back and teach what some people might believe, and [b]say [/b]that it is a belief.
This is where religion can be taught in a fair enviroment, it does however, need to completely stay out of science, because there is no hard evidence behind any of it at all, and to teach it as 'science' is actually quite disgusting.
Religion can be incredibly interesting in the way it influences people, and [b]all[/b] religions are worth learning about, which is what the Religious Studies subject is for.
Science however, is for the facts, and to push years of tests and evidence aside because some people believe in something without any evidence into it being true is not right.
[/quote]
The part in bold is the issue I have with the education I received. Whilst I am in no way saying that it was a bad education, I was told in Religious Studies that creationism was exactly what happened, as a matter of fact. Mt biology teacher, however, was forced to clarify that evolution was a possibility, and her own personal belief. For the two ideas to be presented that way around is genuinely terrifying.
I should also clarify that I am too in the UK.