Teaching Creationism in public schools...

[Anonymous]

There are people with scientific backgrounds that believe in intelligent design..



I can't explain it of course and I don't have any interest in it either..



I am ok with public schools teaching anything about anything because we would never take our children out of their school and put them in public schools where students perform poorly compared to where they are now..



Oh and the big bang theory is taught alongside intelligent design in my children's schools.

How do you know students perform poorly compared to where they are?

Parents are given reports on how school our schools which is comprised of a primary, junior and senior high compares academically, athletically and social problems like drop outs to the city and the province..



We're proud of the results, but the staff still strives to do even better.

You put kids in small class sizes with affluent parents and they are bound to do better than kids with a range of social/economic backgrounds.  Schools like yours also typically do not have many kids with severe learning disabilities because public schools are better equipped and funded to do so.



You're really comparing an apple to an orange.

Your assumption would be wrong RW..



My children's sister school has an excellent program for children with learning disabilities.

 ac_smile

Interesting.  I thought it was cost prohibitive.  Well it is here but I don't think we get the same tax dollar allocations as you do in AB for Catholic schools.



Thanks for the correction :)

Christian education has evolved and grown..



We can match just about any program offered by the public system when the demand is high enough.

I live in...well you know where I live.  It's too small to offer much of anything.  We're lucky to have a Catholic school nevermind anything else.

That's like when I lived in Kazakhstan, our only option would have been to send my daughter to a secular international school..



She was too young at the time though and we only stayed one year.

[RW]

Sometimes I forget how small town my experience was.  I grew/up and lived in the city for almost a decade so I think I get muddled. :)

[J0E]

What Joe is failing to admit to is that although scientific theory like the "Big Bang" is not yet entirely proven, the supporting theories and analysis are indeed provable. Scientific phenomenon such as the known galaxies moving away from each other can be observed and measured. Cosmic background radiation resulting from a rapid expansion can be observed and measured. Quasar drop-off during large red shifts can be measured and proven. The number of active quasar and galaxies collisions over time can be measured and accounted for. Spectra analysis of older stars can measure the abundance of primordial gas and elements in their composition.  All these naturally occurring phenomena point to the concept of a hot universe and a sudden rapid expansion (Big Bang). In fact some of the phenomenon we have observed can ONLY be explain by a sudden and rapid expansion of cosmic material.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm">http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm

[easter bunny]

I found neither theory to be satisfactory so I had to come up with my own. I call it quantum fractal energy dissipation. In a nutshell, the universe is made of energy that's trying to dissipate, and it cycles through long periods of stability followed by a sudden brief period where gravity lets go and everything flies apart. Then it stabilizes again but at a lower energy level. That's where the three generations of particles come from. They're from previous quantum states when the energy was more concentrated. And it's been going on forever - long enough for snakes to learn how to talk. =P

[RW]

NERD!

[Anonymous]

I found neither theory to be satisfactory so I had to come up with my own. I call it quantum fractal energy dissipation. In a nutshell, the universe is made of energy that's trying to dissipate, and it cycles through long periods of stability followed by a sudden brief period where gravity lets go and everything flies apart. Then it stabilizes again but at a lower energy level. That's where the three generations of particles come from. They're from previous quantum states when the energy was more concentrated. And it's been going on forever - long enough for snakes to learn how to talk. =P

 Where'd the quatum vacuum come from and...there was no talking snake. ;)

[RW]

Tell that to Eve, sister!



hahaha

[easter bunny]

NERD!

It's finally cool to be a nerd. I've waited so long..  

[RW]

No it's not.  It's cool to be a geek.



Too far man.



hahahhaa

[easter bunny]

Meh, geek, nerd.. same thing. =))

[Anonymous]

...I support teaching creationism and evolution on an equal plane. That in my mind, is true democracy.

It, like religion, has nothing to do with democracy. It is proselytising, and nothing less. Thus it should not be taught.



However, should anyone provide ONE clear, verifiable and creditable shred of evidence that supports creationism, I'd be happy to revise my view.



But that would mean they would have to provide evidence of the existence of some higher being, or god. That will never happen.

 offs. We have the SAME evidence. It is interpreted differently depending on the world view. Science is NOT a world view, and is limited.  It is an investigation of the natural world.  And guess what?  Evolution is totally irrational.  We have never witnessed abiogenisus OR macro evolution, and the micro evolution used to be known as adaptation. In fact, the only thing we have seen evolve is the theory of evolution itself and its need to tamper with the 2ND law of thermodynamics in order to even make it somewhat possible. Maybe do some deep research on DNA and we can revisit this conversation.  The day you see a tornado rip through a garbage dump and produce a 747....I'm sticking with ID.

[Anonymous]

Tell that to Eve, sister!



hahaha

She knew.

[Anonymous]

http://www.silverweapon.com/top5.html">http://www.silverweapon.com/top5.html  Crowley,  give this link a good read.

[Bricktop]

http://www.silverweapon.com/top5.html">http://www.silverweapon.com/top5.html  Crowley,  give this link a good read.

I doubt I have ever read a more irrational, illogical, poorly constructed argument in rebuttal to atheism in all my years.



It utterly ignores the complete and fatal flaw of religion, particularly Christianity.



There is absolutely NO evidence...NONE AT ALL...that ANY deity of any colour or description exists. I have asked you many times over to provide a single, verifiable, empirical or even historical fact that your precious Yahweh exists, and you repeatedly fail to cite an example.



FYI, the bible is NOT evidence.

[Anonymous]

Actually, you havent. As I stated, you actually don't know enough about the Bible to refute it.  This will go down exactly the same way it does with every anti theist. A huge waste of time.  Btw, you can't be an atheist, the position that there is no God is irrational. I'm sure you have no clue why, though. I fully expect you to reject any solid evidence widely accepted as bullshit because that's what anti theists do. The tantrum is the cherry on top. Try opening your mind and looking at the body of evidence. Why don't you go point by point with everything in that article and explain, with facts, why it's irrational to you. I laid down points. Refute them. *popcorn* FYI, no where in that article was the bible used.