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

a reply to: ISawItFirst

Yeah but off topic this is about the UK.
We have done it and religion is falling away here in the UK (only 30% religious).
We are finally growing up.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Evolution is the best, scientifically backed theory of how all the species on earth came to be, so that should be taught in the mandatory curriculum. ANYTHING that is based solely on a religion should be offered as an elective/optional class only. If someone wants to learn creationism, go to Sunday School.

Ok so ya we agree there, and yes to your top portion of this post we will just have to agree to disagree and await that conversation when it comes up.
I also agree that it would be hard to equate the US and UK's systems of education.
So 2/3 isn't bad between us


Also kudos on your previous post explaining creationism with the poofs, very well done.

originally posted by: raxusillian
a reply to: Prezbo369

Love how people just jump onto things as pure unadulterated truth.

You would have been one of the people killing those that claimed the earth wasn't flat.

Which people were they? In fact, which group of people believed the world was flat to begin with?

The "truth" changes from generation to generation. I doubt we will know the real truth of our origins or the working of the universe until hundreds of generations from now if we are still here at all.

That doesn't mean we aren't on the right track to finding it. I hate seeing this stupid rationale against science. "Well we don't know all the answers and the answers change all the time, therefore it isn't worth believing in!"

a reply to: ISawItFirst

Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem, but that doesn't say that you are FORCED to worship god, just that you are allowed to worship him any way you want to worship him, as per the 1st amendment. By the way, not worshiping a god is ALSO a form of worship.

It also goes on to say that you can't be barred from being a juror or a witness in a trial due to your religious beliefs in god.

Man it's like you COMPLETELY missed the point of that passage.

a reply to: ISawItFirst

I believe in exactly zero deities. Am I less American because of that?

No.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Evolution is the best, scientifically backed theory of how all the species on earth came to be, so that should be taught in the mandatory curriculum. ANYTHING that is based solely on a religion should be offered as an elective/optional class only. If someone wants to learn creationism, go to Sunday School.

Ok so ya we agree there, and yes to your top portion of this post we will just have to agree to disagree and await that conversation when it comes up.
I also agree that it would be hard to equate the US and UK's systems of education.
So 2/3 isn't bad between us

Also kudos on your previous post explaining creationism with the poofs, very well done.

I'll concede this 100% if you can devise a testable hypothesis for evolution that doesn't also hold true for Last Thursdayism. Till that's solved, empirically, evolution is a theory. A good scientific one that has lots of evidence, but it is not a universal truth. Also not mutually exclusive with creationsism.

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.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wow, I know you have good reading comprehension, and are intelligent, did you just stop reading when you thought you reached the gotcha moment? Re read it and apologize. Or you sir have no honor.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not demanding anything. Just telling you how to win the argument to my satisfaction. I don't blame you for not wanting to. I don't mind losing, it's actually one of the more rewarding parts of life.

a reply to: ISawItFirst

No one is claiming that evolution is the end all be all answer to the question of how we came to be.

Just the one with the most backing currently by our scientific community.

Creationism doesn't even come close to that.

Oh and that last thrursdayism seems to be a parody of creationism so not sure why you brought that up.

But i did only read the first section of the wiki.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ISawItFirst

No one is claiming that evolution is the end all be all answer to the question of how we came to be.

Just the one with the most backing currently by our scientific community.

Creationism doesn't even come close to that.

Must have next to zero faith in that scientific backing if you need to legislate away competing theories.

It is in a sense a mockery of creationism. I don't dispute that. That's what makes it fun. So we have a pseudo creationist theory that fits every aspect of evolution. Two theories, no evidence that favors one over the other. I'd like to ask science how it chose which one was correct, do you have his email?

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wow, I know you have good reading comprehension, and are intelligent, did you just stop reading when you thought you reached the gotcha moment? Re read it and apologize. Or you sir have no honor.

Please, you have been wrong since the get go and you are asking Krazy to apologize?

You linked a source that went against what you were saying.

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

You seem to think you now about evolution......can you elaborate on how it requires creationism?...

Oh I don't know.....Maybe because there needs to be a reason for something to exist before it can evolve....That's a good start! We may have evolved, but God created us before we could evolve.....

Out of curiosity what would be the "reason" for existence exactly??? Is there a general, overall kind of reason for everything or is it broken down into multiple reasons for each and every single thing??? Or both??? Or none of the above and some other reason which I didn't mention???

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)

a reply to: ISawItFirst

Nope we in the UK understand time is a resource to teach our children so why waste that resource on something with zero scientific backing and frankly nonsense?.

a reply to: ISawItFirst
I just don't want my tax dollars going to teaching something that doesn't need to be taught in public schools since it is founded in religion and nothing else.

Has nothing to do with with having no faith in the backing, that is clear as day for anyone that wants to look at it with an open mind.

I also understand that kids soak in and believe everything they are told when they are young, part of being naive.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wow, I know you have good reading comprehension, and are intelligent, did you just stop reading when you thought you reached the gotcha moment? Re read it and apologize. Or you sir have no honor.

Nope, I read it as is. It's pretty clear as to what it is saying. Not sure why you are having trouble understanding it.

That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him

I find it acceptable, to me, to not worship any god. Looks like I'm in the clear here.

all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;

Looks like agnosticism is protected too.

wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights;

Looks like the government can't make any laws that restrict my agnosticism or antagonize me for it either.

nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry;

Don't have to attend church if I don't want to. Good to know.

nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief;

Not allowed to be barred from serving on a jury or be a witness on account of my religious beliefs.

provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.

This is saying that IF I believe in god then I am also accountable to that God's law. It certainly isn't saying that I am REQUIRED to believe in a god. The key word here being "provided" which is another way of saying "if".

a reply to: Sremmos80

Art. 36. That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.


Wow. Now I need at least two apologies. Honor is in danger here.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not demanding anything. Just telling you how to win the argument to my satisfaction. I don't blame you for not wanting to. I don't mind losing, it's actually one of the more rewarding parts of life.

So basically you are saying that you want an unrealistic amount of evidence that you don't require for ANY other theory for a theory that has MORE evidence for it than most of those other theories that you want this unrealistic evidence for. That's called a double standard and is basically proof of you admitting that you have confirmation bias.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are being willfully ignorant,you know how to read and what thay sentence says. There is no if.

Will not be deemed incompetent for religiousbeliefs provided he believes in God.

You sir have no honor without an apology and I will make sure everyone knows it.